• 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...

Supposed Ray Walton claim??

I agree with all that Graham...and I think there's a long answer and a short answer.
The former answer involves several variables (species/condition[of specimen]/air temp/water temp[=fish temp]/humidity etc.) plus whether the fish is placed in direct sunlight, kept wet by having water poured over it etc.
The latter is, keep (any) fish out of water for as short a time as possible. I'd say over 50% of mine aren't removed from the water at all : I use barbless hooks that are more often than not (>50%) 'thrown' by the fish in the landing net. If I wish to weigh the fish then I 'snap off' the landing net head and weigh the fish in that (=/<10 secs). On the very rare occasion I want a picture (~1-50), I put my camera into 'movie mode', take a 10-15 second video, then 'frame grab from that later. Maximum time out of water in that case would be 30 secs.

I see it as a 'how long is a piece of string' thing...where the only answer is, remove the barbel in its natural environment for as short a time as possible.. and preferably not at all.
 
Terry Simner said:
I agree with all that Graham...and I think there's a long answer and a short answer.
The former answer involves several variables (species/condition[of specimen]/air temp/water temp[=fish temp]/humidity etc.) plus whether the fish is placed in direct sunlight, kept wet by having water poured over it etc.
The latter is, keep (any) fish out of water for as short a time as possible. I'd say over 50% of mine aren't removed from the water at all : I use barbless hooks that are more often than not (>50%) 'thrown' by the fish in the landing net. If I wish to weigh the fish then I 'snap off' the landing net head and weigh the fish in that (=/<10 secs). On the very rare occasion I want a picture (~1-50), I put my camera into 'movie mode', take a 10-15 second video, then 'frame grab from that later. Maximum time out of water in that case would be 30 secs.

I see it as a 'how long is a piece of string' thing...where the only answer is, remove the barbel in its natural environment for as short a time as possible.. and preferably not at all.
Click to expand...

That seems fair to me.
 
So.
The outcome are...

A recommendation to keep barbel out of the water for as short as time as possible, if at all. And to make sure they are well recovered before release.

And that Jeff and Neil don' t like each other.:rolleyes:
 
I've no problem with the prospect of fish being damaged by an extended duration out of water. I've no doubt that brain damage is a possibility in the stages before death. However, equating angler induced brain damage to fish that get big and captured frequently is a step too far.

Fish can be greedy and incautious entirely naturally. There are always those that grow bigger and eat more in every year class. Such behaviour and rapid growth can be seen in waters that have no angling whatsoever to blame. No doubt that, when fished for, big, greedy, incautious fish become known and sometimes labelled as mug fish. It doesn't necessarily follow that they've been brain damaged in any way.
 
i ready a study that suggested that frequent exposure to barbel can lead to an increase in bad tempered outbursts in a small percentage of human beings.

i've not caught enough yet to know if i've got the gene
 
Lets all be nice and agree on two prepositions to which there is no conclusion (any philosophers out there that gets THAT one?? :) )

1/.. if barbel spend to much time out of water then there's a likelihood of brain damage, and..
2/.. if certain barbel anglers spend too much time away from the water then they will exhibit evidence of brain damage.

I think we've all got each other sussed.. we know, and it aint the 'silly season' quite yet lads :)
 
terry simner said:
lets all be nice and agree on two prepositions to which there is no conclusion (any philosophers out there that gets that one?? :) )

1/.. If barbel spend to much time out of water then there's a likelihood of brain damage, and..
2/.. If certain barbel anglers spend too much time away from the water then they will exhibit evidence of brain damage.

i think we've all got each other sussed.. We know, and it aint the 'silly season' quite yet lads :)
Click to expand...


:d:d:d:d:d
 
Chris Jones Quote: "I've no problem with the prospect of fish being damaged by an extended duration out of water. I've no doubt that brain damage is a possibility in the stages before death".

So how long do you reckon you can keep barbel out of the water on the bank ...before Death?
 
Ray Walton said:
So how long do you reckon you can keep barbel out of the water on the bank ...before Death?
Click to expand...

I have no idea, Ray, just as I'd hope that no one does. Besides, there are going to be a multitude of factors that mean any definitive statement, on how long brain damage or death would take to occur, is pointless.

However, the death and brain damage thing wasn't my point. It's the suggestion that big greedy fish are brain damaged that I have trouble with. I don't see the logic in that, nor can I see that there's any proof whatsoever for it.
 
Ray Walton said:
Chris Jones Quote: "I've no problem with the prospect of fish being damaged by an extended duration out of water. I've no doubt that brain damage is a possibility in the stages before death".

So how long do you reckon you can keep barbel out of the water on the bank ...before Death?
Click to expand...

Probably far longer than most realise. I've had escapees in the past of various species, one peusdochromis was out so long (jumped out an aquarium) it was dry and covered in dust. You'd of sworn it was dead. Within 30 minutes it was swimming around again, mucus layer a touch battered by it lived a further 5 years and passed of old age.
 
Chris Jones said:
I've no problem with the prospect of fish being damaged by an extended duration out of water.
Click to expand...

I think that your post could have possibly been misinterpreted by some Chris. I may be wrong but, what I believe you're saying is... you don't have a problem with the argument or proposition that fish are/may be damaged by an extended period of duration out of water.
I don't believe that you're saying that you don't have a problem with its occurrence (that is, fish being left out of water).
I presume I'm correct in this.
 
Terry Simner said:
I think that your post could have possibly been misinterpreted by some Chris. I may be wrong but, what I believe you're saying is... you don't have a problem with the argument or proposition that fish are/may be damaged by an extended period of duration out of water.
I don't believe that you're saying that you don't have a problem with its occurrence (that is, fish being left out of water).
I presume I'm correct in this.
Click to expand...

You are right, and I thought it would be rather obvious what was meant. However, I suspect that some have misinterpreted it. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. My idea of what's logical doesn't necessarily coincide with others.
 
I can acknowledge the ambiguity of the language used. However, apply a little logic, and it should be pretty obvious. Would anyone really come on and effectively say "I catch fish and keep them out of the water just to see if they die and how long it might take"?
 
Chris Jones said:
I can acknowledge the ambiguity of the language used. However, apply a little logic, and it should be pretty obvious. Would anyone really come on and effectively say "I catch fish and keep them out of the water just to see if they die and how long it might take"?
Click to expand...

I think it would need to be read completely out of context to come to that comprehension.
 
Stephen Crowhurst said:
I think it would need to be read completely out of context to come to that comprehension.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I also think Chris' original post on the subject is probably the most logical conclusion we can arrive at without ever knowing for definite.

A quick look in a koi pond at feeding time will support his observations, some fish can indulge more than others at times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top