One other modern change in angling, new since my return to the rods, has been the practice of naming big fish. In the sixties and seventies, as far as I know and can remember, Clarissa was the only large coarse fish to have been given a name. And she, being resident in London Zoo from 1952 to 1972, had been removed from all danger of being caught again.

The modern trend of naming fish allows an angler to go out and try to catch Mary, or Fred, or Two-Tone, or Slate Grey, or whatever other named fish might be out there. It is far far easier to catch big fish now, and there are many, many more anglers doing it. Indeed, these days anyone can do it. And the massed usage of high protein baits has ensured that there are many more of these big fish to be caught.

Modern baits, and saturation fishing techniques have led to a situation where most, if not all, of the really big fish have been caught several, if not many times. Naming the bigger fish in the lake has also effecively meant that the maximum size of fish in any particular lake is now very well known. The mystery of bygone years has gone. No longer can you look out over a carp lake and wonder how large the biggest fish might be in there. You know already. Not only that, but you probably also know where it took the bait the last three times it was hooked, what the bait was, the method, and what colour socks the angler was wearing at the time. No longer can you have the thrill (as I have had) of taking the first carp known to have ever been caught from a particular large lake....and still having very little idea of how big the other fish in there might be. You can't have that animated conversation, wondering about possible monsters in the depths.

Angling has become so much more predictable. No one can seriously still claim that carp (or any other species) are super intelligent, hard to catch, beasts. The fact that they regularly end up in a net disproves that completely. The baits, tackle, DVDs, angling on TV, the interweb, and magazines have all effectively dumbed down angling to a tremendous degree. In doing so they have also removed any kudos from those who claim to have "outwitted" a large carp..or barbel...or...whatever. We are dealing with a fish, not a creature likely to advance Einstein's theories very much, and unlikely ever to feature as a "Weakest Link" contestant. Hardly a great claim to make, that you have beaten, using all your intelligence, an overgrown goldfish. We have largely lost the ability to boast about the fish we have caught, simply because the process has become so much easier. So much has been done for us these days, that the problems are 90% solved before you reach the water. There is still great enjoyment to be had from angling, but the ability to boast about the day's captures has been well watered down.

But what we might just have tried to retain is the mystery, the not knowing what is out there, not knowing how many fish live in that lake, or that swim, how big they are. The unknown. But the naming of fish is also removing that joy. I don't want to know that there is a fish called Wanda in a certain swim, and that it weighed 12 pounds 6 ounces last Wednesday morning! Don't tell me. I prefer not to know it has been caught before 14 times over the last three years. I don't need to know its name, and definitely don't want to know if it is the biggest in the lake, or river. So I don't note down any little "features" it might have, I don't check for that distinctive split in the dorsal fin, or that misplaced scale. It's another reason I don't post photos. No one can tell me they caught my fish three weeks ago.

This naming seems to be a feature, largely, of carp angling. But reading the forum it would seem that barbel too, are being similarly identified. It all spoils it a little for me. How about you? Do you really need to know?

Having stirred things nicely, I look forward to a lively debate.

.....Retreating and hiding behind the dark glasses

When you've hammered the same area for the same old fish you should be on first name terms with them! It's only polite.

The importance of being able to recognise individual fish should not be underestimated - if you doubt - read the chapter entitled ' the importance of recognising individual fish ' in THE barbel fishing book - Quest for Barbel by Trefor West and Tony Miles.

Would also like to add:

If anyone feels like their enjoyment would be spoilt if they knew they were catching the same fish time and time again - why not gain enjoyment from finding new ones instead?

By identifying individuals you learn their movements - you'll find out they are not always in swim A or B and you will have a better understanding of the actual fish population you are trying to target. Best of all you'll be a better barbel angler with that knowledge.

Or carry on in ignorant bliss - chioce?

Originally Posted by Barbel Seeker

When you've hammered the same area for the same old fish you should be on first name terms with them! It's only polite. An amusing point indeed! (JZ) The importance of being able to recognise individual fish should not be underestimated - if you doubt - read the chapter entitled ' the importance of recognising individual fish ' in THE barbel fishing book - Quest for Barbel by Trefor West and Tony Miles.

Damn! I missed out "books" from the dumbing down list!
Interesting subject for a chapter. I don't intend reading the book, for I rather like working things out for myself. But I guess the importance may be related to a quest to catch specifically big fish, and being able, after a while, to exclude a swim/area? Simply because you are catching "the same old fish". (JZ)

I totally agree naming fish is wrong surely once they are named don’t they become pet fish which is what most carp lakes are big garden ponds sorry if this offends some people but it’s true (no mystery). And while I’m having my rant the same to goes for the River Great Ouse where so many Barbel were named and only the high and mighty could fish (not that I want too). I say come and fish the River Severn and most people don’t because it’s too hard for them and to those people you know who you are who say the River Severn will never produce the British Record Barbel again, how would you know you don’t fish it!!!!

__________________
Silverlake Technology
Shropshire Foods
Facebook Silverlake Technology
Facebook Shropshire Foods

Originally Posted by Barbel Seeker

Would also like to add: If anyone feels like their enjoyment would be spoilt if they knew they were catching the same fish time and time again - why not gain enjoyment from finding new ones instead? By identifying individuals you learn their movements - you'll find out they are not always in swim A or B and you will have a better understanding of the actual fish population you are trying to target. Best of all you'll be a better barbel angler with that knowledge. Or carry on in ignorant bliss - chioce?

I completely agree with the above,learning about the fishes movement through the seasons and there movements in floods etc is what keeps my interest up on the Ribble.
You would be amazed how far Barbel move throughout the season

Originally Posted by Jam

I totally agree naming fish is wrong surely once they are named don’t they become pet fish which is what most carp lakes are big garden ponds sorry if this offends some people but it’s true (no mystery). And while I’m having my rant the same to goes for the River Great Ouse where so many Barbel were named and only the high and mighty could fish (not that I want too). I say come and fish the River Severn and most people don’t because it’s too hard for them and to those people you know who you are who say the River Severn will never produce the British Record Barbel again, how would you know you don’t fish it!!!!

See what i mean! ignorant bliss . . . . .

I like to fish knowing that i have got a good chance of catching a pb.I,ve been fishing a free stretch for the past 3 years knowing that the fish i have been targeting would beat my pb(14-06) when caught at any time of the year.I dont mind catching any barbel at any time but its nice to know that there is a chance of catching a WHOPPER.

Originally Posted by Barbel Seeker

See what i mean! ignorant bliss . . . . .

Please qualify do you really think that you are of superior intelligence, that’s all you need to put! At present I’m giving your argument the same status as when my teenage daughter says to me “Whatever”!!

__________________
Silverlake Technology
Shropshire Foods
Facebook Silverlake Technology
Facebook Shropshire Foods

It is probably impossible to form an accurate assessment of the movements of a single fish by repeatedly catching it. To be successful in such a venture suggests the fish will rarely vary its habits, from season to season, month to month, flow level to flow level, weather conditions... well you get the picture. To gain enough data that fish would have a very sore mouth. And as you suggest, I for one would have moved on to seek a different target, way before enough information could be gathered as to make the location of that fish very predictable. Fortunately barbel are in the main shoal fish. As such it is not so necessary to track the movements of one or two individuals. A catch of any fish from the shoal should yield a similar, maybe marginally less, amount of information as catching a specific fish. I do not know the extent to which individual fish remain with the same shoal, but does that matter?

The larger the river of course, the more fish (in general) , and the more unlikely it is that many fish will be individually named. But also the larger the river, the less characterful it becomes, and this leads to a reduction in the amount of river knowledge needed to fish it successfully. I don't think, Jam, that the Severn is a particularly hard river to fish. I haven't fished it for barbel myself in some 40 years though, and so cannot give much idea of the likelihood of it producing a record. In my opinion a record is most likely to come from a heavily fished (lots of bait), fairly small stream, or a heavily fished area on a larger river, such as the Trent... or maybe, less likely, as you suggest, the Severn.