The best Barbel catch of all time?

News surfaced recently that Barbel angler, Nigel Bryans had managed three 16lb+ fish in one session on the Nene. As you can imagine, Nigel was not only shocked but delighted and shared his unbelievable news on Barbel Fishing World (here). The thread, which started off with sincere congratulations has however threatened to turn sour.

Catching a Barbel over 15lb is a fish of a lifetime, to manage three in one sitting has never been done as far as I’m aware and I doubt it will happen again. Tension started to appear when a debate began regarding whether the three fish were individuals or were they two fish, with one of them being caught twice. Ray Walton, of rolling meat fame, was the main protagonist and studied the photos long and hard under the guise of the 'River Records Committee', claiming that for the list of records to maintain credence then the three fish would need to be scrutinised as each one could be a potential new record. Ray even went on to question the dates on one of the photos as it did not correlate with the capture of the other two. Nigel then saw himself trying to defend his catch. The three fish are pictured below so you’re free to pass your own opinion as to whether the fish are different or not. However, my view is whether this is what fishing is actually about. I appreciate that some people take it seriously, in their quest for fame, sponsorship and whatever else floats their boat but is it worth all the fuss and bad feeling that has undoubtedly been felt in the thread on Barbel Fishing World?

Although it’s unlikely I’ll ever be in Nigel’s position, I think he did the right thing in highlighting is catch. Anglers want to know that such catches are possible since many would have doubted catching three huge fish was a possibility until last week. However, I can imagine Nigel is perhaps regretting going public with his news given some of the flack that’s come his way and I’m sure it soured his feelings of euphoria. The local Peterborough Telegraph (here) even ran a story where it apparently names the stretch although this is based on a guess rather than fact but I can imagine that stretch will come in for some attention in the coming months from the glory hunters, which again is regretful.

 Anyway, in closing I think the photos prove that the fish are of the weight claimed and given there was a credible witness it should have been a straight forward river record claim as far as I was concerned. I am not entirely sure where the doubt has come from and whether it was required given the friction it has caused. As I mentioned earlier the three fish are pictured below so let me know what you think about their identity and would you have gone public if you’d managed the feat? Before I go, I think Nigel deserves a pat on the back, well done!

Barbel number 1 at 16lb

Barbel number 2 at 16lb 8oz

 

Barbel number 3 also at 16lb 8oz

Same old story!

You may recall my recent post (here) on trying to persuade the Birmingham Anglers Association (BAA) to change their 'one hour after sunset' rule. Firstly, many thanks to Mr Williams of the BAA who has taken the time to read and respond to my report. His reply is as follows:

Mr Lee Poultney,

As promised I tabled your letter at the Management Committee meeting which was held on Monday 29 October. I have been asked to pass on the thanks of the Officers to you for taking an interest in this matter.

Firstly I have to point out that your letter contains a number of assertions and presumptions which do not reflect the reality of the situation. I should perhaps point out that the introduction of night fishing on Association waters is a relatively recent initiative and was introduced only on an experimental basis at limited venues and is by no means certain to be extended or even retained. The current system for issuing night permits is as flexible as it can be, whilst retaining the required control elements of the procedure. It is not necessary to visit the office in order to obtain night permits, indeed most members call the office to order their permits which are then posted on to them. We realise that this is not practical if a member makes a late decision to fish at night but it does work for most members. We cannot tailor every Association rule to cater for individual member’s requirements, we have to balance this against what is practical and in the best interests of the Association overall. We cannot have a situation whereby we lose control of knowing who is fishing where at night. You suggest that the vast majority of anglers fishing BAA waters do so in order to catch Barbel – what evidence do you have for this? You also assert that the BAA match calendar has declined over the past decade – do you mean the contests which BAA run, or the number of contests run by associated clubs?

In your proposed changes you suggest we use ‘dawn’ as a starting time – when is dawn? We have to have a rule which can be enforced and which is clear and not open to interpretation, hence the fact that our current fishing times are determined by known parameters, i.e. Sunrise and Sunset.

Under your proposed changes, there would be a potentially unlimited number of anglers on river banks, unsupervised, in all weather conditions until well after dark throughout the season. This we consider to be a potential hazardous situation and one which could put many members at risk. Furthermore, many of the fisheries which we only rent have ‘no night fishing’ clauses in their leases so in these circumstances we could not sanction any change. Having considered your proposals in detail, the Management Committee are unanimous in their opinion that to make changes along the lines you propose would not be in the best interests of the Association or the overwhelming majority of its members.

Regards,

John Williams
General Secretary
Birmingham Anglers Association Ltd.

In the letter, Mr Williams poses a number of questions/points as follows (The yellow bits are my response):

The current system for issuing night permits is as flexible as it can be, whilst retaining the required control elements of the procedure. Could an online system not be incorporated?

It is not necessary to visit the office in order to obtain night permits, indeed most members call the office to order their permits which are then posted on to them. We realise that this is not practical if a member makes a late decision to fish at night but it does work for most members. Not every angler wants to sit there all night, but paying for an hour or so does not represent value.

We cannot have a situation whereby we lose control of knowing who is fishing where at night. Do the BAA know who is fishing and where in daylight hours so why is it different once the sun sets?

You suggest that the vast majority of anglers fishing BAA waters do so in order to catch Barbel – what evidence do you have for this? I applied this assumption to the BAA's river venues and I'd say I'm not too far away with this remark.

You also assert that the BAA match calendar has declined over the past decade – do you mean the contests which BAA run, or the number of contests run by associated clubs? A look at the weekly venues unavailable due to matches is tiny compared to 15 years ago. There is a definite decline.

In your proposed changes you suggest we use ‘dawn’ as a starting time – when is dawn? Dawn was used as an example. All I wanted was the opportunity to discuss this matter further and such fine details are ‘nitpicking’ in my opinion.

We have to have a rule which can be enforced and which is clear and not open to interpretation, hence the fact that our current fishing times are determined by known parameters, i.e. Sunrise and Sunset. That is fine, but a set cut off time as I suggested would serve the same purpose.

Under your proposed changes, there would be a potentially unlimited number of anglers on river banks, unsupervised, in all weather conditions until well after dark throughout the season. How do the BAA supervise unlimited numbers of anglers during daylight hours and during a range of weather conditions?

This we consider to be a potential hazardous situation and one which could put many members at risk. Anglers are at risk every time they visit the bank, are the BAA assuming responsibility for anglers’ welfare? If so, does that mean the BAA are at risk of being sued should a member fall in and drown?

Furthermore, many of the fisheries which we only rent have ‘no night fishing’ clauses in their leases so in these circumstances we could not sanction any change. In this case, they would be exempt.

I do believe that the BAA are missing a trick here especially when they have clearly advertised that they are trying to attract 'specimen anglers'. I also wonder what the background of the committee is and if it’s representative of its members. I had hoped there would have been more of a discussion rather than a 'straight no' to my suggestions, since that's all they were, suggestions. I'd have hoped we could have discussed them in more detail and tried to thrash something out to suit all parties. I did send my responses back to Mr Williams but I fear that without a significant backing from other like-minded members then any calls for change will fall on deaf ears. All the best, Lee Poultney

Will the BAA join the 21st Century?

Firstly, I'd like the say that the Birmingham Anglers Association represents the best value in the country with miles of rivers and canals as wells as a range of pools all for the sum of £35. However, despite boasting 70,000 members during the 1970s and 1980s their current membership is just a fraction of that. Unfortunately, the club is still run in a similar fashion and by the same people it was 20 years ago and as such it is failing some of its members through a lack of flexibility in keeping with modern angling practises.