• 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 see no problem whatever with adding snippets of information or statements given for debate.

Whether the individual is on here or not.

What's the problem. It happens all the time. There's a wealth of experience on here so lets discuss and often learn.

Lets not be too precious.
 
Graham Elliott said:
I see no problem whatever with adding snippets of information or statements given for debate.

Whether the individual is on here or not.

What's the problem. It happens all the time. There's a wealth of experience on here so lets discuss and often learn.

Lets not be too precious.
Click to expand...

Well as the individual was quoted, albeit in a manner that was not respectful it would have been a lot better if any evidence to support, what he said, if in fact he did. But that's RW's decision.
However common sense would dictate that the 30 second rule would be a a good guide. It might ruffle a few feathers however.
 
Derek Funcks said:
Jeff, Neil, can't you 2 just get married and invite us all to the wedding. I,ll even use hemp/caster instead of confetti, and buy you a 2 man bivvie, with 1 sleeping bag as a wedding prezzie. ;):D

Come on guys, get a grip, life is too short. Tight lines to you both. :)

And as for Ray's " supposed " comment, if he said it, it wasn't without a thorough investigation/research. I have the utmost respect for the man. He is barbel through and through. There can't be many on here, with more experience/knowledge than Ray.
Click to expand...

Married to Neil!! Perish the thought Derek, he's too negative.:eek:
 
The comment by RW was made on a barbel group on Facebook following some mishandling on the Trent (I think). Anyway, it said:


Barbel, as you know, cannot tolerate being out of the water as long as carp can.
I believe if a barbel (and other species) are kept out of the water too long, then it can cause serious brain damage and they end up like a cabbage...if they survive that is. They are often called 'mug fish' showing no sense of awareness and caution as others do in the population, but just return to a basic natural instinct of feeding on anything present to survive the rest of their lives and get continuously re-captured over and over again. It is no different to sticking a human under water for minutes breathing in water. We all know the consequences of that. Also, i just read this on the John Levells Avon Diary website regarding accidently or deliberately catching and returning 'Salmon' which everybody, including experts should take note!
“Do your best not to remove the fish from the water and if you have to bring it onto the bank you have 30 (THIRTY) seconds. After that it is all downhill I'm afraid and you will have a dead fish on your hands.”
Click to expand...

It is common sense that by keeping a fish out of water too long, it will eventually die. Different species can be a bit more tolerant than others and survive a little longer. As John Levell infers that over '30 seconds' for Salmon' (and probably the Sea trout, Brown Trout, Grayling etc) out of water' will cause serious damage and probably eventual death, whether returned to the river or not. Barbel would be less than Carp in my opinion, so you can take it that each species can be different and have their own limits. Not sure of the Scientific Info, but i know some might exist on some species. Whether that info is common knowledge or would be made public is another thing. ;)
Click to expand...

Make of it what you will but at least we know what was said now and we can put to bed the thought that the the thread was based on a wind up. RW was happy to post those views on FB so I doubt he would be too offended to see them appear here.
 
neil smart said:
well as the individual was quoted, albeit in a manner that was not respectful it would have been a lot better if any evidence to support, what he said, if in fact he did. But that's rw's decision.
However common sense would dictate that the 30 second rule would be a a good guide. It might ruffle a few feathers however.
Click to expand...

how was asking a question disrespectful!!! Christ you live for attention!!!

Go fishing!!
 
Lee Poultney said:
The comment by RW was made on a barbel group on Facebook following some mishandling on the Trent (I think). Anyway, it said:






Make of it what you will but at least we know what was said now and we can put to bed the thought that the the thread was based on a wind up. RW was happy to post those views on FB so I doubt he would be too offended to see them appear here.
Click to expand...

Wind up???????????? How???????????

Thanks for posting though mate.
 
I will throw my two penneth in, for what it's worth, while carefully avoiding the latest post.

Back in the days when carp fishing was my thing (and we ain't talkin matches in puddles)...the majority of anglers were after 'the' biggie, or one of the biggies in larger waters. Call them trophy hunters if you like, whatever.

The thing was if that/one of the biggies was caught, word quickly spread around the lake and anglers gathered for the trophy shots etc. Now, by and large, the fish were rested in retaining slings/sacks between times, and in general the fish were cared for...but I think it inevitable that at times, these fish may well have been out of the water too long, or at least too often, in these circumstances. Carp CAN stand being out of water for longer periods than some species, but still.........

So, here's the thing. Every so often these fish would suddenly acquire the 'mug fish' status, and every so often one of them would die. Almost invariably the ones that died would have a short period of being caught WAY too often for their own good just before the sad event, and anglers would comment that it 'knew it was dying', or similar bits of 'urban wisdom'.

So, although many of the big fish have been caught countless times over many years, and are still going strong to this day....were the odd ones pushed over the line by less caring anglers, and was that a significant pointer as to why they died? And could Ray's theory be correct, that these fish were impaired mentally because of lack of oxygen to the brain on those rare occasions? I have often given thought to the situation, but I admit I didn't really think about the brain damage thing. That theory has got the grey matter joining the dots now though :eek:

Cheers, Dave.
 
Echo's my sentiments at the moment Dave, we have our very own 'mug' fish on my local bit of the WA, and the logic behind the theory is very compelling.
I hope that some anglers will take note, and reduce the time out of the water to a minimum, even if they have to demote the selfie to an in the net snap.
 
Thanks for digging out Ray's comments Lee,...I assumed there would be a link to the " 30 second rule" posted on the Avon Diary at the end of July by JL.
A quick look back through the past Salmon season pics on there illustrates that you can take a photo without leaving the fish out of water for more than a few seconds.
There is also the 19 degree water temp cut off for salmon angler's on the Avon taken at Knapp Mill monitoring station....dissolved oxygen levels are considered to low for a fish to recover when above that reading.
Some clubs have been known to ban the weighing and photographing of barbel during prolonged hot/ low water spells when DO is low.
DO will generally be at its lowest around dawn in well weeded rivers according to available info, and my tests on the Stour would confirm that,...even though water temps are often slightly lower at that time of day.
Ray's comments are certainly food for thought.
I stopped fishing for barbel during a recent spell of low DO in the Stour and fished for other species who weren't as likely to exhaust themselves through capture. That's purely a personal preference and I wouldn't preach to other anglers.
Again, personally, I leave a fish to rest in the net facing upstream,...unhook it in the net,...( did manage to end up with a size 9 ESP rap embedded in my finger when a fish flipped last week!)....set up the camera facing the net/river,...press timer,...get in river and lift fish out of net,...release fish.
The fish is out of the water for less than ten seconds.
This works well for me in low water conditions and is akin to what many salmon angler's do.
In cooler/higher water conditions, I will sometimes use the mat if not wearing waders but still let the fish rest first whilst getting a camera organised.
It is difficult to do this within 30 seconds I reckon,...so more food for thought, but DO levels are generally higher.
Swim choice is also important ,..difficult awkward swims don't always bode well for fish recovery imo.
Angling, by its very nature is a compromise re fish welfare and I continue to listen and consider other opinions. It makes me cringe when I recall some of my initial fish handling techniques 40 years ago.
As Graham says,...we can discuss these things.
 
Not a case of 'preaching' Dave, just common sense, there are just too many examples of belly up Barbel that are decimating stocks, for every seen dead fish how many go unnoticed? As a group on here that are dedicated Barbel anglers it's a good message to send out to others.
Personally I would rather be safe in the knowledge that any returned fish is not too damaged by the experience, even with the lack of a trophy shot. As I am sure we all would.
 
If ever there was an argument for barbless hooks then surely this it ? I use them and can honestly say that my fish are out the water 5-10 seconds on average. Also
I wade a lot so often just handle the fish without a net, just holding them in the flow til they are recovered. So mouth damage (which I don't believe) or brain damage, you choose ?
 
Cliff Turner said:
If ever there was an argument for barbless hooks then surely this it ? I use them and can honestly say that my fish are out the water 5-10 seconds on average. Also
I wade a lot so often just handle the fish without a net, just holding them in the flow til they are recovered. So mouth damage (which I don't believe) or brain damage, you choose ?
Click to expand...

As far as I know there is no definitive evidence for either Cliff, on hooks I believe that micro barbs are a compromise that work, on brain damage no need for prolonged periods out of the water for ego boosting photographs, just enjoy each fish and keep them in your memory.

Or maybe after each fish is caught and left resting in the net the angler should run say 400 yards and then hold their breath for as long as it takes to take a photograph, might make the process a bit quicker :D
 
Dave, whole heartedly agree with you about the carp were kept out of the water, as you well know many left them out to slow them down to get a so called perfect shot, this was imo definately unneccesary from fish welfare point of view and one the of main reasons that stopped me taking snaps or like most times not even having a camera with me, i enjoy seeing a picture or more of nice fish but its just not for me actually taking pictures myself, i am just glad to see this thread back on an interesting track.:)
 
A few years ago I watched a Carp angling take three picture wearing three different t-shirts

with a different logo on each one.
 
Brain damaged fish? Hmmmmm. They are either alive or dead. Actually, they could also be nearly dead because their organs were starved of oxygen long enough to damage them and the fish will die shortly after swimming off through organ failure.

These are basic stimulus-response organisms. To say a fish is brain damaged because it continues to EAT and therefore gets caught again is a complete mis-understanding of survival. Having just been caught, a fish needs to eat to replenish itself, increasing the odds of it being caught again (especially if anglers bait is a main food source). A brain damaged fish wouldn't eat. Their brains (through basic stimulus response mechanisms)tell them to eat, reproduce and flee from danger.

From an evolutionary perspective the ability to survive without oxygen for short periods would be beneficial to a species like fish as they are stupid enough to swim into flood ditches, jump out of the water etc etc. If being starved of oxygen led to irreversible brain damage resulting in loss of the basic survival functions then as a species fish would have dropped off the planet long before the dinosaurs.
 
Haha... Not been on here for a while so sorry i have not answered and put the record straight much earlier.
As you can see in my FB page quote (a few BFW pages back). The '30 Second' out of water time limit was relating to a quote by John Levell in his Avon Diary website regarding 'Salmon'. I never mentioned a time limit as such on that post but inferred that keeping barbel out of the water for too long would cause brain damage...which is common sense in my opinion. The reasoning is on that post(s). Basically, i never mentioned the 30 seconds for barbel anywhere. However, i would say now that probably 1 minute stints out of water would be max on the bank before returning a barbel back to the water or even less if you can. When i hooked and landed a fish, i never took it straight out of the water onto the bank. I let it rest up in the landing after the fight..in the water giving it ample time to recover and regain it's strength. With the barbel still in the water in the landing net securely staked out, I set my camera/scales up ready on the bank beforehand and then weighed the fish first quickly on the bank(if necessary), then return it to the water in the landing net for a while. If i wanted to photograph/measure it, then i would do the same again and then return it quickly afterwards. On final returning, i would hold the fish in the landing net or weigh sling for quite a while until i was confident that the barbel had fully recovered. To me, it became instinctive to do what i had to do in short time bursts, always keeping an eye out on the barbel's reactions as a priority and to see any stress factors it may show. The longer you keep a barbel out of the water, the longer it will take to recover...if at all. The barbel may seem to go back ok but that is just instinct as the barbel touches the water. However, what happens after that the angler can't see most times. If not fully nursed and recovered, the returned barbel can go under weed and turn belly up or gassed up barbel will surface belly up a few minutes later downstream somewhere out of sight. In my time, i have seen and heard of big barbel being left on the bank by lone anglers(some experienced) and then they run back to the car because they forgot/didn't bring their scales or camera etc etc...because they didn't think they would catch one...or they thought it was bad luck to bring them. That would take at least 10-20mins or more with the barbel laying on the bank gasping the air and gassing up..and/or dying. That should not happen. I still think brain damage or part brain damaged is caused to which they lose their once instinctive cautionary senses. Some barbel are elusive and hard to fool and catch and others are mug fish caught day in day out... just like humans and some other creatures i suppose.
 
Thanks, Ray, for clarifying. The principles you apply closely mirror those suggested in the BS barbel handling code.

Lee Pountney's post earlier clearly states Ray was quoting someone talking about salmon.

Bit of a waste of time all round..... :rolleyes:
 
Hi men ,

One thing iv done through the summer carp fishing when needed was to copy something from the Korda masterclass videos that are free to watch online . In the french fishing section at Carpasens and Gigantica they rested the fish in a sling ( i used the net successfully ) and gave the fish what they called an oxygen bath . It was just a small bucket / container , where they pored water from a height slashing down around the head area of the fish . The thinking of this was to increase the oxygen intake as the fish rested , and i can say it worked for me without doubt .

I had a fish resting in my hands waiting for it to swim away , but it seemed reluctant . I put it back in the net upright , and emptied my pellet bucket , and tried the bath . Very quickly the fish came to life , and in fact tried pulling the net in with it . The theory would probably hold true with barbel , although we dont fish for them anymore , so cant say that for a fact . Worth watching the videos , they are entertaining as well .


Hatter
 
If any creature has a brain...it can get brain damage... in more ways than just one and at different degrees and effects. In my opinion, this post/thread highlights just one probable cause which could affect the barbel's health, well being and it's ability to survive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top