• 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...

Underwater with Barbel

Pete Marshall said:
I'll let Mr Darwin know its just conjecture when I meet him in the afterlife:D
Click to expand...

I think you will find that Mr Darwin didn't believe in all that afterlife stuff Pete, so if you do meet him there, he will probably be totally peed off at being held for perpetuity in a place where his theories no longer work :D:D

On a more serious note, I am a bit torn on this issue. I am aware from my amateur diving that as said, fish do not usually seem too disturbed if approached underwater. However, it must be said that they are not too disturbed if approached by a predator such as a pike or a shark either (providing it doesn't attack them of course)....so that kind of muddies the water a bit (excuse the pun) on the 'hiding from predators' bit.

I have also noticed that most fish are a little more disturbed if approached while snorkelling (which, as you are essentially surface viewing, would appear to strengthen the 'predator from above' theory.) However, the manner in which they react to a snorkeller certainly SEEMS to be more annoyance rather than fright, though of course I have no way of proving that. What I will say is that their sometimes highly visible agitation when confronted by a snorkeller is much more pronounced in a 'busy' area than it is in less disturbed areas....signs of learning?

Incidentally, I would assume by the slight though visible signs of agitation of the fish in the video that the camera man involved was probably snorkelling.

There are some very experienced divers on this forum who might like to comment, or add their views, if asked nicely :D

Cheers, Dave.
 
Have any of the angler/divers ever used a rod and line underwater to catch such fish? If you can get in amongst them, surely dropping a baited hook would reap rewards. I'm not for one minute advocating this, but it would be interesting to know.
 
David Gauntlett said:
I think you will find that Mr Darwin didn't believe in all that afterlife stuff Pete, so if you do meet him there, he will probably be totally peed off at being held for perpetuity in a place where his theories no longer work :D:D

On a more serious note, I am a bit torn on this issue. I am aware from my amateur diving that as said, fish do not usually seem too disturbed if approached underwater. However, it must be said that they are not too disturbed if approached by a predator such as a pike or a shark either (providing it doesn't attack them of course)....so that kind of muddies the water a bit (excuse the pun) on the 'hiding from predators' bit.



Cheers, Dave.
Click to expand...
Maybe something to do with movement. I have noticed that watching fish from above, once you are still, even though the fish may have originally spooked at you, they will gradually re appear. Make any sudden movements, particularity with your hands (pointing them out to another person for instance) and they will spook again.
I have also watched Pike swim sedately along right through shoals of all sorts of fish, without them seemingly to bother. Then suddenly they spook as the Pike launches an attack.
Haven't dived in freshwater and mainly in the Mediterranean, but there the fish don't seem unduly bothered by divers or snorkellers, I suppose it is a pretty everyday sight for them. I have friend who are more serious divers and dive in places like the West Coast of Scotland. They always say the boat they dive from spooks the fish more then the divers themselves, once again this shadow above them. Boats may look a little like sharks or killer Wales to a fish I suppose.

If I do get to meet old Charlie in the after life, I think we are both going to be on the end of burning pitchforks according to the Christians/ Muslims (at least the ones who preach on the streets of Birmingham) so discussion about the wrongness of his theories will perhaps have to wait for a while......;)
 
Pete Marshall said:
I don't need to re think anything as I never suggested that at all.
Barbel have instincts. These are developed through natural selection. This development took place long before man came on the scene. Man hasn't actually been around long enough yet to have had much influence on barbels natural instincts and catch and return has little or no effect on natural selection anyway. Those instincts make them seek shelter from predators. They have no way of know if a predator is a bird, dinosaur or me. If something moves in their line of vision, if a shadow falls over them, any sound out of the ordinary etc. etc. etc is what they have evolved defences against.

Individual barbel may have the ability to learn as well as use their highly developed instincts. On waters that are fished a lot they may well develop new behaviours as individuals (rather than as a species) to protect themselves from predation. However seeking out the types of places shown in this video is not a learnt behaviour and is nothing to do with whether a particular bit of river is pressurised or not. Barbel live in such places everywhere.

The types of behaviour that barbel display that could be said to be learnt as a result of a water being pressured are responding slower to bait in moving out from these areas when we chuck in pellets etc. Different zoologists tend to have different explanations for these types of behaviour and some question whether fish learn in the way we would understand it at all.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's entirely true, Pete, evolution starts somewhere and things that fish discover enable them to avoid being caught will be passed on to the next generation.
Though barbel as a species vary little over the length and breadth of the country, their habits from river to river vary greatly, I would say, driven mostly by angling pressure. Take for example the feeding times and periods of fish populating a stretch allowing 24hr fishing - they will be quite sporadic, and short. Quite different to those on venues allowing daylight hours only fishing, where they will tend to feed, albeit lacking in any great confidence, throughout the day, until dark, where lack of clarity given by falling light levels will encourage them to spread out.

Damian
 
Colin Gordon said:
I'm a changed man.....







..... My arse!:D

I know some your first post was put up tongue in cheek BUT surely you must sort of believe a bit in what you wrote, or not?

Good luck this afternoon. Teme or Avon?
Click to expand...

Avon Colin
And I had just arrived to see the permanent occupier of the 'hot' peg landing a double figure barbel, and after photographing it for him and returning it I hoped the fishing god's would be sympathetic to my desires. They were not however and that single fish was the only success.
But will try and sneak out again to-day though, I have to break the curse of the 'new tackle syndrome' (Okuma bait runner:) And, before any of you scoff, yes 'new tackle syndrome' does actually exist, that is the third blank in a row with the new reel.
 
Damian Kimmins said:
I don't think that's entirely true, Pete, evolution starts somewhere and things that fish discover enable them to avoid being caught will be passed on to the next generation.
Though barbel as a species vary little over the length and breadth of the country, their habits from river to river vary greatly, I would say, driven mostly by angling pressure. Take for example the feeding times and periods of fish populating a stretch allowing 24hr fishing - they will be quite sporadic, and short. Quite different to those on venues allowing daylight hours only fishing, where they will tend to feed, albeit lacking in any great confidence, throughout the day, until dark, where lack of clarity given by falling light levels will encourage them to spread out.

Damian
Click to expand...

Totally agree.
 
On a few occasions, I have stood/waded in a river, had barbel at my feet and stroked them. (this is not a fetish thing)
 
On a small carp lake I used to fish there was a plateau beneath a canopy of overhanging trees, with deeper water beyond the spreading branches. One could scramble down the bank under the tree wearing waders, and lower yourself into the 20"of water beneath the darkish canopy, and frequently find yourself surrounded by carp up to 30lb, actually touching your waders. They showed no signs of fear if you moved slowly, and you could indeed reach down and stroke them.

If you showed yourself to these fish anywhere else on the lake, they would be gone in a flash, and not return for hours. Odd that they should accept an angler in that situation, which although safe from avian predators from above, was as open to water borne predators as it was to them....and to anything which chose, like me, to scramble under their tree. I could have been a bear or whatever for all they knew, so their instincts learned in bygone ages seem to be a tad patchy!

Strange critters fish :D

Cheers, Dave.
 
Last edited:
Neil Smart said:
Avon Colin
And I had just arrived to see the permanent occupier of the 'hot' peg landing a double figure barbel, and after photographing it for him and returning it I hoped the fishing god's would be sympathetic to my desires. They were not however and that single fish was the only success.
But will try and sneak out again to-day though, I have to break the curse of the 'new tackle syndrome' (Okuma bait runner:) And, before any of you scoff, yes 'new tackle syndrome' does actually exist, that is the third blank in a row with the new reel.
Click to expand...

Hi Neil I know what you mean about new tackle syndrome , I had the same problem with a new rod at the start of last season .

So we have a new permanent occupier of hot peg :(
 
Joe Fletcher said:
Hi Neil I know what you mean about new tackle syndrome , I had the same problem with a new rod at the start of last season .

So we have a new permanent occupier of hot peg :(
Click to expand...

No No No not 'that' one mate:rolleyes: The 'C' swim, he's always there of late and has applied for a post code:p

Had two 4lb plus chub this afternoon, no barbs...reel still a barbel virgin, but a chub slapper;)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Marshall
I don't need to re think anything as I never suggested that at all.
Barbel have instincts. These are developed through natural selection. This development took place long before man came on the scene. Man hasn't actually been around long enough yet to have had much influence on barbels natural instincts and catch and return has little or no effect on natural selection anyway. Those instincts make them seek shelter from predators. They have no way of know if a predator is a bird, dinosaur or me. If something moves in their line of vision, if a shadow falls over them, any sound out of the ordinary etc. etc. etc is what they have evolved defences against.

Individual barbel may have the ability to learn as well as use their highly developed instincts. On waters that are fished a lot they may well develop new behaviours as individuals (rather than as a species) to protect themselves from predation. However seeking out the types of places shown in this video is not a learnt behaviour and is nothing to do with whether a particular bit of river is pressurised or not. Barbel live in such places everywhere.

The types of behaviour that barbel display that could be said to be learnt as a result of a water being pressured are responding slower to bait in moving out from these areas when we chuck in pellets etc. Different zoologists tend to have different explanations for these types of behaviour and some question whether fish learn in the way we would understand it at all.

I don't think that's entirely true, Pete, evolution starts somewhere and things that fish discover enable them to avoid being caught will be passed on to the next generation.
Though barbel as a species vary little over the length and breadth of the country, their habits from river to river vary greatly, I would say, driven mostly by angling pressure. Take for example the feeding times and periods of fish populating a stretch allowing 24hr fishing - they will be quite sporadic, and short. Quite different to those on venues allowing daylight hours only fishing, where they will tend to feed, albeit lacking in any great confidence, throughout the day, until dark, where lack of clarity given by falling light levels will encourage them to spread out.

Damian
Click to expand...

Evolution is species driven, fish altering their patterns of behavior as a result of angling pressure is not natural selection in action, far from it.

Kevin Nash was talking about how he thinks carp anglers have altered the carps evolution due to blow back rigs the other day and although I normally find what the 'old school' have to say fascinating this didnt ring true with me.

If it was evolution the carp would have a totally new way of feeding. As it stands some carp have learnt that to eject the hook they need to keep sucking and blowing (as they always have when feeding) so as to throw the hook. They have learnt that it is them bolting away that leads to them getting hooked. In order for this to be considered as evolution I would argue you would need to observe new born carp (those who hadnt been caught) taking baited rigs and never bolting ie sucking and blowing still once they have been pricked.

Back to barbel, if said stretch stopped 24 hour fishing or fishing altogether then I would wager you would see a return to 'natural' barbel behavior very quickly. I also think that catch and release angling does not have significant enough effect on species survival to effect evolution.
 
Damian Kimmins said:
I don't think that's entirely true, Pete, evolution starts somewhere and things that fish discover enable them to avoid being caught will be passed on to the next generation.


Damian
Click to expand...
Only if the behaviour that leads to avoiding being caught is linked to genes and if being caught means not being able to reproduce (as in being hit on the head when a immature fish). That is the process of natural selection. And , as correctly pointed out above, would lead to a completely different set of behaviours and indeed a different species. Natural selection is the driving force of the evolution of species, that is what Darwin showed. Natural selection may have a much more limited role in minor variations within a species, cultural factors are of much great importance. The ability to develop cultures (localised sets of behaviours that are not species wide) would have been developed through natural selection, but those cultural behaviours are not passed on to the next generation, they have to be learnt and re learnt every generation.

The behaviours you describe may be examples of learnt behaviour and not something passed on to the next generation. Or it may be a generalise set of behaviours that are species wide but displayed in different ways locally dependent upon the local conditions (a culture).

An example would be language in Humans. All humans are capable of developing language, but in order for them to do so they must be exposed to a language at an early age and will develop different languages dependent of the particular culture they are brought up in. So language can be said to be species wide and the ability to learn one developed through natural selection, but specific languages and the individuals ability with that language is a cultural one.

DO fish have cultures?

Zoologists agree that most mammals and birds have cultures, but disagree on fish (my mate who is a professional zoologist firmly denies the chance of fish culture, but his degree was a long time ago and more recent studies argue differently).

Personally, they certainly seem to have cultures from my own experience, which much like yours is of fish behaving differently in different places....
 
Last edited:
Ash Gould said:
Evolution is species driven, fish altering their patterns of behavior as a result of angling pressure is not natural selection in action, far from it.

Kevin Nash was talking about how he thinks carp anglers have altered the carps evolution due to blow back rigs the other day and although I normally find what the 'old school' have to say fascinating this didnt ring true with me.

If it was evolution the carp would have a totally new way of feeding. As it stands some carp have learnt that to eject the hook they need to keep sucking and blowing (as they always have when feeding) so as to throw the hook. They have learnt that it is them bolting away that leads to them getting hooked. In order for this to be considered as evolution I would argue you would need to observe new born carp (those who hadnt been caught) taking baited rigs and never bolting ie sucking and blowing still once they have been pricked.

Back to barbel, if said stretch stopped 24 hour fishing or fishing altogether then I would wager you would see a return to 'natural' barbel behavior very quickly. I also think that catch and release angling does not have significant enough effect on species survival to effect evolution.
Click to expand...

I disagree really Ash. My understanding of evolution suggests something different - physiologically evolution takes many years to show itself and the period in which anglers have been chasing fish is very small in comparison, too small for any changes to have occured, but changes in behaviour driven by pressures placed upon them will be a driver for those changes to take place. I feel an example of those changes might well be the reduction of the ability for bottom feeding fish to suck, specifically in water lacking clarity, replaced perhaps with the ability to bite at something, this, over time, might well see a change in the shape of their lips, perhaps with an elongation of their sensing barbels too. In clear waters, where I have experienced fish feeding well off the bottom in order to avoid getting hooked, this may drive a change in the shape of their lips towards them being further extended from the head to aid sucking.
That's my understanding of evolution and it working.
On your point, and Pete's, of what might constitute a difficulty for the fish is surely argued against by a change being witnessed - for instance, we might never see a fish bolt at the sight of a cube of luncheon were it not to present a problem for them. Simply, being caught may well interupt the ability for a fish to become bigger and stronger, affecting it's ability to be dominant when spawning.

Damian
 
I feel an example of those changes might well be the reduction of the ability for bottom feeding fish to suck, specifically in water lacking clarity, replaced perhaps with the ability to bite at something, this, over time, might well see a change in the shape of their lips, perhaps with an elongation of their sensing barbels too. In clear waters, where I have experienced fish feeding well off the bottom in order to avoid getting hooked, this may drive a change in the shape of their lips towards them being further extended from the head to aid sucking.
Click to expand...

I think you've missed the point Damian. What you have observed is learned behaviour and that will only impact evolution if failure to adapt said learned behaviour leads to death; as such those with the natural disposition for said learnt beahviour pass this disposition onto the next generation and so on.

Fishing doesnt have significant enough an impact on species survival for it to play a significant role in the fishes evolution.
 
Has our beloved and inappropriately named `Boris` secretly been down the deed poll office and changed his name to `Bertie`?!!
 
Ash Gould said:
I think you've missed the point Damian. What you have observed is learned behaviour and that will only impact evolution if failure to adapt said learned behaviour leads to death; as such those with the natural disposition for said learnt beahviour pass this disposition onto the next generation and so on.

Fishing doesnt have significant enough an impact on species survival for it to play a significant role in the fishes evolution.
Click to expand...

Do fish know that being caught will lead to them being returned to the river then?
The fittest survive to procreate, while the weakest fall by the wayside. Anything that risks an animal being weakened will be avoided or learned to be avoided, unless of course that risk is necessary to survive.

Damian
 
It may say something that you've not responded Ash, or Pete, but I always considered that natural selection is a function of providing your offspring, and following, theirs, the best possible chance of continuing by being in the strongest possible position. Anything that carries with it a risk of that then being difficult, will naturally be avoided, or least learned to be.
I see every year on the Avon, fish that are quite obviously at differing ends of any possible scale of their interaction with anglers - at one end I see fish that are not fished for for 6 months of the year, and even then, not pressured. And then I see those that will feed quite avidly over baited areas, quite aware of what is happening, feeding an inch or so off of the bottom. The former fish wouldn't know a baited patch of gravel if it hit them, yet it's documented that the area in which the latter populate used to contain fish with much the same behaviour.
It suggests to me that angling has a significant impact on their behaviour.

Damian
 
I didnt respond because there is no point flogging a dead horse.

Angling does and will continue to have a significant impact on barbel behaviour. This does not and probably will not have an effect on evolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top