• 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...

Severn river trust

Have to agree with Mark about pressure. In fact IMO if other factors are constant then angling pressure tends to increase fish populations. After 2007 floods the population of the lower teme was mostly reduced to a few large fish for about 3 seasons. It then started to recover until 2013 when it declined again following prolonged flooding. Barbel can survive v strong flows, but their homes will still be swept away. I would suggest that in common with other rivers much more seasonal floodwater needs to be held back upstream. Constant scouring of the riverbed and frequent bank collapses aided by the dominance of himalayan balsam leaves no time for cover /snags/debris/holding features to develop. This may of course just be part of a natural cycle and we may at some stage enjoy a more benign period of weather.

cheers paul
 
Jason Bean said:
Be interesting to know when barbel first started showing in the river? They may having been there at the expense of other species
Click to expand...

A stretch of the Kennet I fish used to be a roach fishing syndicate apparently. Back in the 70's I think while I was trying to get to grips with my Chopper and gawping at TR7's. Then apparently barbel arrived and anglers were catching 20 plus barbel a day. Not big, but lots of them. Now there are a handful of fish and one or two might be quite big.
 
Paul. A lot of sense in your post.

I remember the changes that Dave Mason noted to his stretch and population of barbel.
 
Above Powick, between 2001 and 2007, on Sundays only, 9am til 4pm, in July and August, those few stretches of the Teme that weren't overgrown (i.e. probably <5% of it) were sometimes 'hard fishing'. That is, maybe 10 anglers max to the mile. Outside of those times, those high summer months, elsewhere than those small areas that were sheep meadow (e.g. Beck's etc.) or were strimmed and maintained (e.g. some BAA Middle stretches + BAA Broadwas/Cotheridge etc), and after 2009, the Teme was mostly very lightly fished.
Long stretches of the Teme saw less than one angler a week...before or after 'the floods'. IMHO.
ATBA
Terry
BTW. In response to previous mention of crayfish being a factor in barbel's decline? Maybe elsewhere.... but Teme crayfish = Red Herring.
IMHO

Paul....totally agree with what you say.
 
Hi men ,

Floods , and the prospect that it affected a fish nature designed to be the pinical of fast water living , yet that great big square headed thick log , the chub stayed put , mad eh ?:eek:. Paul's right , those 2007 floods seems to have effected the barbel more than other fish , and what went on over that month of those high waters changed most of the river , if only we knew the main reason at least , **** or something they did not like being washed off the land into the river ?, their home as Paul puts it changed by the fierce currents ?, it's the answer even experts can't find .

I still say added to the population crash we did see predation on the river , yes otters , and for other species a noticeable increase in cormorants , to the point Sue had her rod pulled off the rest on two occasions as the bloody things caught the line :mad: . In a short time so much changed , so many different factors hitting the river at the same time .

Hatter
 
And the Teme's now got loads more goosander Hatt...whole 'fleets' of 16+ birds, stretching bank to bank....working upstream in harmony, like a feathered piercing stabbing 'net'.
 
Bobby Baker said:
I think this thread clearly highlights what the SRT are up against, or anyone that takes on the 'care for all' approach. There are those that try to manage an Eco-system, then there are those that are species specific conservationists. Who has the right to decide on the utopian balance?
Until those can work together in unity, (can they ever?) it'll be a tough ride no matter what the end goal. Fortunately work carried out in the name of the WFD should benefit all species.
Click to expand...

Well Bobby, that's one interpretation of the facts. On the other hand, one could put a different slant on things, interpret what we see in a different way. As has already been said, this forum IS called BARBEL FISHING WORLD. Why you find it strange that we barbel fishers, on OUR forum, show rather more than a passing interest in the well-being of barbel....is quite beyond me. Judging by the depth of your animosity towards those who wish to support the welfare of barbel, in this case in particular, I do begin to wonder what goes on here.

The fact is, according to you, 'single species conservationists' (most barbel anglers, in addition to a host of other specialists) are 'What the SRT are up against'. In other words, for wishing to protect the interests of the fish we love to fish for above all others, we are somehow at fault, somehow lesser beings than members of the faultless SRT. It's OK to be a trout only fisherman, or salmon specialist, tench fisher, roach lover, whatever....and promote THEIR well-being, but barbel fisherman? Dreadful people. I struggle to understand that concept, from you of all people.

The other thing that bothers me about the notion of single species interests being so dreadfully wrong is this. The main reason quoted for the proposed removal of the weir in question is to allow shad SPECIFICALLY to gain access to old spawning grounds, thus promoting THEIR comeback. I cannot for the life of me see how THAT is not 'single species conservationism'. Oh I know, I have read all the blurb about ALL species benefiting 'eventually', but you must admit, shad are named as the main thrust of this move, any benefits anything else gains seems to be purely a by product of that aim.

It has been said, and virtually admitted to by the SRT, that their efforts are in the main game fishing biased...in their own words, being so 'ticks a box' towards gaining future funding. Nothing wrong with that, funding is vital, so you need to do what gets you the best funding...but it does point to the real agenda here. I then note that in the JBA Consulting paper 'Restoring The River Teme SSSI', they state in several places that 'invasive species' are one of the reasons for the rivers decline. Listed here is one instance of this, and I quote....

The river is influenced by several factors both physical, hydrological and chemical.
Several units within the SSSI remain classified at ‘unfavorable no change’ mainly due to physical system modification including:
Weirs Deflectors
Mills Revetment
Hydropower
Embankments
Bridges
Invasive species and disease

Ok, now I am completely unaware of what 'invasive species' they are talking about. It could be any of a number of fish....who knows. What I do know is that barbel are by and large indigenous to East flowing rivers only, so those in the Severn, and thus eventually the Teme...were introduced fish. I then recall that on this very forum, amongst others, many anglers have said that it was utterly wrong to introduce barbel to these other rivers, that they 'don't belong there'. I have also often heard complaints of how barbel damage the Salmon fishing prospects of a river once introduced, and how they are sometimes thrown up the bank by salmon fishermen because they class them as vermin....and so on ad infinitum, we have all heard it, or similar, many times.

So....that combination of facts does rather set alarm bells ringing for me. It may be total tripe on my part, and I really don't have all the facts. However, when I tie my knowledge of the hatred many salmon/game fishermen hold for barbel (please don't bother telling me that it's not true....I know first hand that it is)...to the fact that the partners in the Teme project ARE game biased. Well, is it too far fetched to imagine that barbel are at least one of the 'invasive species' being talked about? Dot's a few 'i's and crosses a few 't's if it is true, doesn't it?

Cheers, Dave.
 
David Gauntlett said:
Well Bobby, that's one interpretation of the facts. On the other hand, one could put a different slant on things, interpret what we see in a different way. As has already been said, this forum IS called BARBEL FISHING WORLD. Why you find it strange that we barbel fishers, on OUR forum, show rather more than a passing interest in the well-being of barbel....is quite beyond me. Judging by the depth of your animosity towards those who wish to support the welfare of barbel, in this case in particular, I do begin to wonder what goes on here.

The fact is, according to you, 'single species conservationists' (most barbel anglers, in addition to a host of other specialists) are 'What the SRT are up against'. In other words, for wishing to protect the interests of the fish we love to fish for above all others, we are somehow at fault, somehow lesser beings than members of the faultless SRT. It's OK to be a trout only fisherman, or salmon specialist, tench fisher, roach lover, whatever....and promote THEIR well-being, but barbel fisherman? Dreadful people. I struggle to understand that concept, from you of all people.

The other thing that bothers me about the notion of single species interests being so dreadfully wrong is this. The main reason quoted for the proposed removal of the weir in question is to allow shad SPECIFICALLY to gain access to old spawning grounds, thus promoting THEIR comeback. I cannot for the life of me see how THAT is not 'single species conservationism'. Oh I know, I have read all the blurb about ALL species benefiting 'eventually', but you must admit, shad are named as the main thrust of this move, any benefits anything else gains seems to be purely a by product of that aim.

It has been said, and virtually admitted to by the SRT, that their efforts are in the main game fishing biased...in their own words, being so 'ticks a box' towards gaining future funding. Nothing wrong with that, funding is vital, so you need to do what gets you the best funding...but it does point to the real agenda here. I then note that in the JBA Consulting paper 'Restoring The River Teme SSSI', they state in several places that 'invasive species' are one of the reasons for the rivers decline. Listed here is one instance of this, and I quote....

The river is influenced by several factors both physical, hydrological and chemical.
Several units within the SSSI remain classified at ‘unfavorable no change’ mainly due to physical system modification including:
Weirs Deflectors
Mills Revetment
Hydropower
Embankments
Bridges
Invasive species and disease

Ok, now I am completely unaware of what 'invasive species' they are talking about. It could be any of a number of fish....who knows. What I do know is that barbel are by and large indigenous to East flowing rivers only, so those in the Severn, and thus eventually the Teme...were introduced fish. I then recall that on this very forum, amongst others, many anglers have said that it was utterly wrong to introduce barbel to these other rivers, that they 'don't belong there'. I have also often heard complaints of how barbel damage the Salmon fishing prospects of a river once introduced, and how they are sometimes thrown up the bank by salmon fishermen because they class them as vermin....and so on ad infinitum, we have all heard it, or similar, many times.

So....that combination of facts does rather set alarm bells ringing for me. It may be total tripe on my part, and I really don't have all the facts. However, when I tie my knowledge of the hatred many salmon/game fishermen hold for barbel (please don't bother telling me that it's not true....I know first hand that it is)...to the fact that the partners in the Teme project ARE game biased. Well, is it too far fetched to imagine that barbel are at least one of the 'invasive species' being talked about? Dot's a few 'i's and crosses a few 't's if it is true, doesn't it?

Cheers, Dave.
Click to expand...


An absolute stunning response, it says it all............
 
leaving politics both national or society wise I feel the term would benefit from leaving barbell to find there own way in the river. let the game guys have a go at it. What harm can it do? at best for them there will be limited trout/grayling fishing for them. at the end of the day pre-problems barbell did just fine.

For me the make up of the river and ferocity of the floods means all coarse fish will have major ups and downs in populations. perhaps it will never be what it once was. the balsam destroys the bank and the predators have a field day in the pool/riffles in low summer and winter levels as the fish shoal up.

I'm a midlander and the difference in river types from say indigenous rivers around here to spate rivers in the west, particularly the smaller ones such as the Teme or Lugg which in only recent times seen barbel move into them....its just one of those things the rivers may only ever have low level coarse stocks due to that's just the way it is now.

changing any of that may be impossible...just something that will never change.

personally I'm bought up on low stock rivers so to have fished the likes of the Teme at there prime was a bonus not the norm.

and dave where do you get the energy from to write these posts,,, as I come to the end I forget what I was talking about and end with out a clue what I'm talking about! :D
 
Back to the case in point. I would have thought that removing Powick weir is just a waste of money. I doubt it is much of a barrier even to the shad. Of course weirs can lead to siltation upstream on small low flow systems. I doubt siltation will ever be a problem on the Teme, however anything which increases the flow speed of a river which is one of the steepest in england may be. Removing obstacles such as weirs may lead to a small increase in suitable spawning areas. The teme needs more spawning areas like I need to eat more pork pies. What matters is spawn and fry survival rates. IMO the money would be far better spent on eradicating balsam and stabilising banks etc benefitting both angler and land owner. Have you ever wondered where the barbel way down the lower and tidal Severn come from? Have they migrated downstream, or are they the result of spawning in the lower river? Of course the answer is both. I will be off to chase some of them ASAP

cheers Paul
 
I did a search and found the attached. Aoologies if its already been shared. You have to scroll quite far to get to Powick, but unless I am being thick or things have developed since this report was released, I'm not sure the recommendation being made is to completely remove the weir is it? Seems that the focus is more about improving the fish pass function (which might itself mean lowering the weir?).



http://severnriverstrust.com/pdf/Appendix 6 - Weir Assessment and Opportunities.pdf
 
David Gauntlett said:
Well Bobby, that's one interpretation of the facts. On the other hand, one could put a different slant on things, interpret what we see in a different way. As has already been said, this forum IS called BARBEL FISHING WORLD. Why you find it strange that we barbel fishers, on OUR forum, show rather more than a passing interest in the well-being of barbel....is quite beyond me. Judging by the depth of your animosity towards those who wish to support the welfare of barbel, in this case in particular, I do begin to wonder what goes on here.

The fact is, according to you, 'single species conservationists' (most barbel anglers, in addition to a host of other specialists) are 'What the SRT are up against'. In other words, for wishing to protect the interests of the fish we love to fish for above all others, we are somehow at fault, somehow lesser beings than members of the faultless SRT. It's OK to be a trout only fisherman, or salmon specialist, tench fisher, roach lover, whatever....and promote THEIR well-being, but barbel fisherman? Dreadful people. I struggle to understand that concept, from you of all people.

The other thing that bothers me about the notion of single species interests being so dreadfully wrong is this. The main reason quoted for the proposed removal of the weir in question is to allow shad SPECIFICALLY to gain access to old spawning grounds, thus promoting THEIR comeback. I cannot for the life of me see how THAT is not 'single species conservationism'. Oh I know, I have read all the blurb about ALL species benefiting 'eventually', but you must admit, shad are named as the main thrust of this move, any benefits anything else gains seems to be purely a by product of that aim.

It has been said, and virtually admitted to by the SRT, that their efforts are in the main game fishing biased...in their own words, being so 'ticks a box' towards gaining future funding. Nothing wrong with that, funding is vital, so you need to do what gets you the best funding...but it does point to the real agenda here. I then note that in the JBA Consulting paper 'Restoring The River Teme SSSI', they state in several places that 'invasive species' are one of the reasons for the rivers decline. Listed here is one instance of this, and I quote....

The river is influenced by several factors both physical, hydrological and chemical.
Several units within the SSSI remain classified at ‘unfavorable no change’ mainly due to physical system modification including:
Weirs Deflectors
Mills Revetment
Hydropower
Embankments
Bridges
Invasive species and disease

Ok, now I am completely unaware of what 'invasive species' they are talking about. It could be any of a number of fish....who knows. What I do know is that barbel are by and large indigenous to East flowing rivers only, so those in the Severn, and thus eventually the Teme...were introduced fish. I then recall that on this very forum, amongst others, many anglers have said that it was utterly wrong to introduce barbel to these other rivers, that they 'don't belong there'. I have also often heard complaints of how barbel damage the Salmon fishing prospects of a river once introduced, and how they are sometimes thrown up the bank by salmon fishermen because they class them as vermin....and so on ad infinitum, we have all heard it, or similar, many times.

So....that combination of facts does rather set alarm bells ringing for me. It may be total tripe on my part, and I really don't have all the facts. However, when I tie my knowledge of the hatred many salmon/game fishermen hold for barbel (please don't bother telling me that it's not true....I know first hand that it is)...to the fact that the partners in the Teme project ARE game biased. Well, is it too far fetched to imagine that barbel are at least one of the 'invasive species' being talked about? Dot's a few 'i's and crosses a few 't's if it is true, doesn't it?

Cheers, Dave.
Click to expand...

Yep........ I dare say this sums up the thoughts of many on here........ Some people really do have to wake up and smell the coffee.
 
A good post young Dave. Maybe you'll get a reply.


Meanwhile I hear (third hand tbh) that all the local Teme angling clubs voted for no change to the weir. I haven't been advised The BS stance but guess they went along with the the fishing clubs.

Graham.
 
David Gauntlett said:
Well Bobby, that's one interpretation of the facts. On the other hand, one could put a different slant on things, interpret what we see in a different way. As has already been said, this forum IS called BARBEL FISHING WORLD. Why you find it strange that we barbel fishers, on OUR forum, show rather more than a passing interest in the well-being of barbel....is quite beyond me. Judging by the depth of your animosity towards those who wish to support the welfare of barbel, in this case in particular, I do begin to wonder what goes on here.

The fact is, according to you, 'single species conservationists' (most barbel anglers, in addition to a host of other specialists) are 'What the SRT are up against'. In other words, for wishing to protect the interests of the fish we love to fish for above all others, we are somehow at fault, somehow lesser beings than members of the faultless SRT. It's OK to be a trout only fisherman, or salmon specialist, tench fisher, roach lover, whatever....and promote THEIR well-being, but barbel fisherman? Dreadful people. I struggle to understand that concept, from you of all people.

The other thing that bothers me about the notion of single species interests being so dreadfully wrong is this. The main reason quoted for the proposed removal of the weir in question is to allow shad SPECIFICALLY to gain access to old spawning grounds, thus promoting THEIR comeback. I cannot for the life of me see how THAT is not 'single species conservationism'. Oh I know, I have read all the blurb about ALL species benefiting 'eventually', but you must admit, shad are named as the main thrust of this move, any benefits anything else gains seems to be purely a by product of that aim.

It has been said, and virtually admitted to by the SRT, that their efforts are in the main game fishing biased...in their own words, being so 'ticks a box' towards gaining future funding. Nothing wrong with that, funding is vital, so you need to do what gets you the best funding...but it does point to the real agenda here. I then note that in the JBA Consulting paper 'Restoring The River Teme SSSI', they state in several places that 'invasive species' are one of the reasons for the rivers decline. Listed here is one instance of this, and I quote....

The river is influenced by several factors both physical, hydrological and chemical.
Several units within the SSSI remain classified at ‘unfavorable no change’ mainly due to physical system modification including:
Weirs Deflectors
Mills Revetment
Hydropower
Embankments
Bridges
Invasive species and disease

Ok, now I am completely unaware of what 'invasive species' they are talking about. It could be any of a number of fish....who knows. What I do know is that barbel are by and large indigenous to East flowing rivers only, so those in the Severn, and thus eventually the Teme...were introduced fish. I then recall that on this very forum, amongst others, many anglers have said that it was utterly wrong to introduce barbel to these other rivers, that they 'don't belong there'. I have also often heard complaints of how barbel damage the Salmon fishing prospects of a river once introduced, and how they are sometimes thrown up the bank by salmon fishermen because they class them as vermin....and so on ad infinitum, we have all heard it, or similar, many times.

So....that combination of facts does rather set alarm bells ringing for me. It may be total tripe on my part, and I really don't have all the facts. However, when I tie my knowledge of the hatred many salmon/game fishermen hold for barbel (please don't bother telling me that it's not true....I know first hand that it is)...to the fact that the partners in the Teme project ARE game biased. Well, is it too far fetched to imagine that barbel are at least one of the 'invasive species' being talked about? Dot's a few 'i's and crosses a few 't's if it is true, doesn't it?

Cheers, Dave.
Click to expand...

The invasive species that they are referring to on the Teme are:

- Curly waterweed
- Himalayan balsam
- Japanese Knotweed
- Monbretia
- Nuttalls waterweed
- Rhododendron
- Snowberry

As far as I can see nobody is suggesting that that coarse fish are having a deleterious impact on the ecological status of the river. Indeed the SSSI citation clearly makes the point that:

'The River Teme has long been recognised as a quality salmonid and coarse fishery. The fish communities strongly reflect the ecological changes in the river as it descends the catchment.'

'The lower and middle reaches have eels Anguilla anguilla, dace Leuciscus leuciscus, barbel Barbus barbus, bream Abramis brama, perch Perca fluviatilis, roach Rutilis rutilis and chubb Leuciscus cephalus. The latter species is typical of the slow and deep flows of the lower and middle river and is found upstream as far as Ludlow, whereas the brown trout is
found most commonly above this point. Salmon Salmar salmo and grayling Thymallus thymallus are also present up to the weir at Buckton. Brook lamprey Lampetra planeri, stone loach Noemacheilus barbatulus and bullhead Cottus gobio can be found in the fast and rocky stretches, though bullhead and stone loach do occur low down the river at Knightwick. Bullheads occur even in the very shallow and fist flows on the open hill near the source. Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus has been recorded on the lower reaches of the
Teme.'

'Of particular conservation interest are the records of the very rare twaite shad Alosa fallax fallax in the very lowest reaches of the Teme. This may represent an extension of the spawning ground from the Severn, which is one of only four confirmed breeding sites in the UK.'


The official statement on NE's views about the management of the River Teme SSSI states:

'Any exploitation of fish populations or other native animals or plants should be at a sustainable level, without manipulation of the river’s natural capacity to support them or augmentation by excessive stocking.
Where stocking is carried out it should not be done in areas which have not previously been subject to stocking, to ensure that the genetic integrity of natural populations of species, such as brown trout, is not compromised.'
 
Howard see attachment, be in no doubt the RST want to remove Powick Weir, how will they afford to do it, Lottery money thats how, plus other donations from other organisations, running into millions of pounds, this so called consultation period is cods wallop.......their minds are made up, however I think if we make enough protest and noise, we just might make then think twice, just might, you never know......

River Teme Fish Access Improvement Project - Severn Rivers Trust
 
Joe Winstanley said:
The invasive species that they are referring to on the Teme are:

- Curly waterweed
- Himalayan balsam
- Japanese Knotweed
- Monbretia
- Nuttalls waterweed
- Rhododendron
- Snowberry

As far as I can see nobody is suggesting that that coarse fish are having a deleterious impact on the ecological status of the river. Indeed the SSSI citation clearly makes the point that:

'The River Teme has long been recognised as a quality salmonid and coarse fishery. The fish communities strongly reflect the ecological changes in the river as it descends the catchment.'

'The lower and middle reaches have eels Anguilla anguilla, dace Leuciscus leuciscus, barbel Barbus barbus, bream Abramis brama, perch Perca fluviatilis, roach Rutilis rutilis and chubb Leuciscus cephalus. The latter species is typical of the slow and deep flows of the lower and middle river and is found upstream as far as Ludlow, whereas the brown trout is
found most commonly above this point. Salmon Salmar salmo and grayling Thymallus thymallus are also present up to the weir at Buckton. Brook lamprey Lampetra planeri, stone loach Noemacheilus barbatulus and bullhead Cottus gobio can be found in the fast and rocky stretches, though bullhead and stone loach do occur low down the river at Knightwick. Bullheads occur even in the very shallow and fist flows on the open hill near the source. Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus has been recorded on the lower reaches of the
Teme.'

'Of particular conservation interest are the records of the very rare twaite shad Alosa fallax fallax in the very lowest reaches of the Teme. This may represent an extension of the spawning ground from the Severn, which is one of only four confirmed breeding sites in the UK.'


The official statement on NE's views about the management of the River Teme SSSI states:

'Any exploitation of fish populations or other native animals or plants should be at a sustainable level, without manipulation of the river’s natural capacity to support them or augmentation by excessive stocking.
Where stocking is carried out it should not be done in areas which have not previously been subject to stocking, to ensure that the genetic integrity of natural populations of species, such as brown trout, is not compromised.'
Click to expand...

Joe, I am aware of the invasive plant species which cause problems on the Teme, and came across a similar list to that you have shown. However, in the paper I am quoting from, it refers to these as 'invasive PLANT species' rather than just 'invasive species'. I assume that when they omit the qualifying word 'Plant', they are referring to something else.

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