• 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

Hi Guy.

I agree with the majority of the reasons you give especially the last one.

Of course it's worth bearing in mind many of the thames fish actually spawn and spend significant time in tributaries and side streams.

Have a look through from the start. You will see why I am wondering about the timescales involved regards the initial high usage of salmon feed pellets (we all used them pretty much exclusively for a number of years) and the time lag for the decline of barbel numbers.

I don't see a problem re Spawning sites on the Kennet or Loddon quite frankly, only that not many fish to use them.....in the case of the Loddon they were perfectly adequate for the previous 40 years!

You will also find the pellet intake analysis if you look back over this long thread Guy.

If you also take the time to read some of the comments from the Manufacturers you will see they do state that feeding coarse fish salmon feed can be detrimental to the fish health. As you say, the carp boys and fisheries have got wise.


One thing everyone pretty much agrees, there is a real problem at the moment. Worth trying to find out why, and if we can actually do something to help. Most of the problems you highlight....we can't.

Added.

Guy
The most commonly used pellets for barbel are salmon feed....

ATB

Graham
 
Hi Graham, I am surprised that salmon feed pellets are the most commonly used...I had always assumed it was the ubiquitous marine halibut pellets that were the culprits, Skretting select, Dynamite baits and so on. Certainly in carp fishing they are the most popular.

Cheers, Dave.
 
Hi Dave.

There probably has been a fair change over the past few years, but for a number of years from pellet first use it was elips type salmon feed pellets that were the barbel anglers mainstay.
This especially so in the South where the initial usage was markedly higher than Midlands upwards.

I remember well on my initial forays onto the Trent for example I never saw another angler using pellets during those first few years of maximum use.

After the first few years of pellet use down south there were real problems of some anglers using very high quantities of the salmon pellet feed eg. 1-2 kg in a number of swims.

If any anglers here remember there was also no pellet groundbait, I along with others burnt out many a coffee grinder making pellet dust.

There are a number of high oil (salmon feed type) products on the market now. It seems the barbel angler prefers high leakage high smell baits. Indeed some baits have free oil in the bottom of the bag from leakage....

The majority of the carp waters now allow only the "fish friendly" low oil baits designed for coarse fish specifically as Guy said, with different composition.

There is a possibility that those salmon feed pellets, given the apparent reliance barbel have pellets as a food source (remember 4 rivers up to 79% intake ) and the time lag for the problems we see now, are a contributer to reduced recruitment.

Graham
 
A question,why are some species effected by high oil content of pellets and not others?They surely get into the food chain and all fish would be effected,my example would be the current Roach population of the Thames which are doing very well around my area ie Reading upstream to Oxford where we are seeing a large number of health fish upto 1lb and around the Oxford area 2lbers are not uncommon.Im not saying Graham is wrong,more that there are a number of factors involved
 
Hi Richard.

Yes a very valid point.

I would say alongside the sharp decline in barbel numbers the other significant fish population decline regards the Thames is in the bream population.

The massive shoals that were a b nuisance on our local Thames areas seem far removed from the numbers we used to experience. What they have in common are the fact they are both bottom feeders.

Certainly on the Thames and Kennet whilst the rivers went through the halcyon barbel days the roach and dace numbers were very poor.

I have notice the sharp improvement in the sport for both species over the past few years. It seems the diminishing numbers of barbel and bream have left a place for the mid water and surface feeders.

Have you found the bream have also markedly declined?

Also I think there may be an element of the lifespan of the different species, and the breeding recovery levels after the main few years of only salmon feed pellets availability and the gradual change to more coarse fish baits. eg. life cycle roach est 4-7 years probably spawning viabilty after 3 , barbel 20 + years probably spawning viability after 6 or so. (they are guesses but you get the point).

How I enjoyed those early Kennet years with dace like herrings and roach to near 2lb fairly common.

I don't think anyone should doubt, that given the banning of salmon feed pellets on so many commercial fisheries that they DO cause damage to coarse fish. The Scientists at the producers have told me so, and were shocked at the intake levels in riverine environments.

I am actually more interested if they disrupt the breeding cycle. No one knows, yet.

Graham
 
I hadn't really thought about the bream but now you mention it I would absolutely agree,the areas I fish you get the occasional one which is actually quite welcome where as years back they made barbel fishing almost impossible unless you took the Guy Rob approach and used "donkey chokers"
 
Hi Graham

When Guy and I fished the Opening session last season, I rigged up with a snowman combination consisting of a 20mm bottom bait and a 16mm pop up.

In my innocence, I considered that a big bait! :D

Guy put on a much bigger offering, went to bed, and warned me that I would be catching bream all night long.

I caught bream. All night long. And I mean ALL night long. :eek: And well into the morning too! :(:(:(:(

I didn't increase my bait size because I was utterly confident that the next Thames record carp was about to barge its way through this ravenous bream shoal and make me very famous and lucratively sponsored.

It didn't! :(

I subsequently read an article by Terry Hearn in Carpology magazine recounting how he and his father had been similarly plagued by bream throughout their Opening session much lower down the river, until he upped his feed levels (and I believe Terry uses much trout pellet as part of his feed?) and carp finally came along.

So, personally I do think there are still very big bream shoals in the Thames.

And I also honestly don't believe that any amount of pellet would disrupt the fertility of fish on the Old Father.

It's just too big. There are so many mouths to feed. And there's so much other food that it's always going to be just one part of a very mixed diet.

I may well be wrong - I often am :) - but I will definitely be using much bigger baits on the stroke of midnight this year to keep Barry at bay!


Mark
 
Mark Berry said:
Hi Graham

When Guy and I fished the Opening session last season, I rigged up with a snowman combination consisting of a 20mm bottom bait and a 16mm pop up.

In my innocence, I considered that a big bait! :D

Guy put on a much bigger offering, went to bed, and warned me that I would be catching bream all night long.

I caught bream. All night long. And I mean ALL night long. :eek: And well into the morning too! :(:(:(:(

I didn't increase my bait size because I was utterly confident that the next Thames record carp was about to barge its way through this ravenous bream shoal and make me very famous and lucratively sponsored.

It didn't! :(

I subsequently read an article by Terry Hearn in Carpology magazine recounting how he and his father had been similarly plagued by bream throughout their Opening session much lower down the river, until he upped his feed levels (and I believe Terry uses much trout pellet as part of his feed?) and carp finally came along.

So, personally I do think there are still very big bream shoals in the Thames.

And I also honestly don't believe that any amount of pellet would disrupt the fertility of fish on the Old Father.

It's just too big. There are so many mouths to feed. And there's so much other food that it's always going to be just one part of a very mixed diet.

I may well be wrong - I often am :) - but I will definitely be using much bigger baits on the stroke of midnight this year to keep Barry at bay!


Mark
Click to expand...
Yes a 'wafter', great fish catchers, and under used for barbel, using a longer than normal hair is ideal. With hopefully not boring too many again, but I had two lumps last season from the WA on 'gert big donkey chokers when the Bream moved in on the feed, and that was not wafting:rolleyes:, but I do intend to waft more this season :p
 
Mark. You're famous already.

No Guys baits were as I said tennis ball size x 2

That'll teach you to use Girly baits and fish the bream spawning areas season start.

Graham
 
GE

I've learned my lesson mate, don't you worry!

:(:D:p

Neil
I'm afraid there may well be a few wafters after a couple of beers and a bankside curry to toast in the new season! :eek::eek::eek:
 
Apologies if I'm repeating other comments. I haven't had time to read the thread.

It seems to me that the barbel in some rivers are in decline (eg Avon, Dane, Wharfe) and in others are flourishing (eg Thames, Wye, Ribble).

Surely the correct scientific approach to this is to evaluate the relevant rivers and look at the difference and commonalities. Depth, spawning territory, fishing pressure, predation etc.

Surely that is a very simple way to make some progress on this issue and draw some reasonably meaningful conculsions?
 
Not sure you are correct on the rivers you class as flourishing Paul. I don't fish any of them, but those who do assure me that none of those three are what they were. Fish are still getting caught, yes....but not in the numbers they were. They are all apparently going through a very familiar pattern of less but bigger fish as time goes by, the Thames more so than the others perhaps. Recruitment down, remaining fish getting bigger, just in time for Mr. otter to come along. Seen it all before.

No doubt some of those who do fish these rivers will have a different opinion, but I can only relate what others have told me.

Cheers, Dave.
 
I don't agree with the Wye either,sorry please don't feel you're being attacked!Im certainly not catching the numbers I used to ie 6 years ago ie 19 barbel in a days fishing was the most I've had but now it's much more like half a dozen and blanking for me was almost unheard of,not so now.To have a bumper day the river really needs colour,not sure if it's down to recruitment or angling pressure although the average size is certainly getting bigger so could be following a familiar pattern and just behind other rivers in time scales
 
Sorry guys, I meant the Trent, not the Thames. The Wye is one of the few rivers I haven't fished, but my impression from a distance is that it's prolific. I stand corrected if not.

The Trent and Ribble I know very well and catch numbers have not declined in my opinion. In fact on both rivers I'd say barbel populations have expanded and become the dominant species.
 
I must agree Paul catch numbers on the Trent have declined year on year from 2011. I here lots still say its v prolific but do they fish the amount of areas as me month after month. Some have maybe fished it once on a v prolific guest ticket. I know of a few v prolific areas on the Trent that catch rates have declined by as much as 50% since 2011. However i have caught year on year more 2 to 3lb barbel since then.
 
I don't think we will ever have any conclusion as to whats happening to make Barbel disappear on some Rivers..
All that will be concluded, will be, there not there anymore..
It seems most Wildlife goes through cycles, one minute theres lots of something and then theres not..
No doubt, Man has played a part in most cases..
I think most Rivers that are seeing decline, will still hold Barbel but not the numbers of yesterday..
Its something we just have to accept as no amount of research or petitions etc is going to stop whats already happened or still happening..
Difficult times ahead for the Enviroment as a whole, whilst money/profit comes before the environment..
 
I have a thought regarding the disscussion for water quality causing fertilisation issues in barbel.

If spawning fish are taken from the river (in the case of barbel) to a fish farm (calverton?) and stripped and reared the success rate is very high. Obviously this ignores the wild spawning site from the equation and its effects on the eggs getting to hatch (low oxygen etc). Another example of this would be the avon roach project.

Both these cases would suggets that there is no decline in the fishes baseline fertilly due to water quality and suggests that its teh natural enviroment after spawinga nd laying of eggs that causes teh problem?

I may be wrong, just the usal speculation :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top