Dave Lumb continues his interview with Steve Stayner

Recently there's been a fair bit of debate as to whether barbel are intelligent or not. I happen to think they are a bit on the dim side (possibly more stupid than pike), but I'd be interested to hear where you stand on this particular subject, Steve?

Hmmm, though I sensed it was inevitably coming, that particular question's certainly arrived a little sooner than I expected.

Well, for the wider picture, I feel we must refrain from measuring a barbel's levels of intelligence against the capacity of the human brain. Let's face it Dave, compared to humans, like many other creatures in this world, barbel are without doubt relatively thick.

I do, however, find it thoroughly acceptable that they can and do become wary of things that they have learned through angling pressure to regard as precursors to the bad experience of being hooked, played and temporarily removed from their environment. I most certainly do not accept suggestions that the general memory span of these fish lasts for only a matter of seconds or minutes, but rather weeks and, in some cases, quite possibly months. Remote though I feel it may be, there's even a chance that some things might stick in a barbel's mind for years. (Sorry Dave, but there are absolutely no prizes for guessing who'll be writing their next article on the back of that one.)

Based on this principle, I have no reason to suspect that barbel and many other fish cannot and would not retain in their limited capacity of memory any information that might be vital to their survival (or may affect what might otherwise be a less stressful existence). In the absence of such a mechanism, I doubt that any land or water-dwelling creature would possess the means to evolve or learn to add new to existing warning signs that will trigger the fight or flight response, which fish undoubtedly possess. Personally, I fail to imagine that even the relatively small brains of barbel are minus the means to renew or establish neural pathways, which would enable them to learn at a very basic level.

I don't give a gnat's doodah that anyone might feel obliged to try and dismantle the theory. To me, it is perfectly logical to accept that the reality of it has slowly been affecting barbel and barbel fishing from the moment anglers began attempting to catch them. Why wouldn't it?

It may well take hundreds more years before future anglers witness the full extent that our catch and return policy will have on the evolutionary process of the barbel. But there is no way we should dismiss the likelihood that today's piscators are already experiencing the early stages of developmental change, brought about by what Mother Nature might view as a form of unnatural predation.

Admittedly the fight or flight mechanism may only be regarded as a fundamental core level of intelligence. But let's explore a few probabilities of how barbel might utilise that which has been in place since the fish's emergence (thousands of years ago) and that which they can learn from repeated association with a relatively new stimuli (catch and return angling pressure) which is just as sure to cause alarm and may, to some extent, affect barbel's natural behavioural patterns.

In the absence of anglers, any threat to barbel would exist only through natural means. Pike, perch, otter, mink, heron, etc., form the list of any natural predatory dangers that the fish will encounter.

Peripherally, as with many fish, the barbel's field of vision is fairly extensive. As we know, the eyes of the barbel are positioned in such a way that they offer the fish a naturally wide, slightly forward and upward view of their domain - to the extent that through clear water, they have ideal visionary capacity to see dangers both in the water and any lurking on the bank. Providing the fish detects it (say, through either movement or shadow), any dangerous stimuli entering their field of vision will cause alarm, usually resulting in the barbel fleeing the scene. This is the type of reflex survival reaction that is embedded into their 'pea sized' brains through natural evolution. It has been present since the day Mother Nature created (?) the species.

Anglers' lines, on the other hand, though they have not yet been entering the water long enough for a fully automatic response to occur on an evolutionary basis, tend to alarm fish that repeatedly experience their presence and so 'learn' to associate them with danger. Therefore, it naturally - and not unreasonably - follows that areas subject to most angling pressure will see 'educated barbel' become unnerved a little more quickly where they can see lines, particularly those acute angles of mainline that some anglers insist on having cutting through the water. Because the line is well within their peripheral field of vision, positioning the rod tip skyward (Trent style) during daylight, in a clear and pressured area is therefore a suspect tactic indeed.

When it comes to eating in clear water during the day, however, the natural position of their eyes does not allow barbel the means to view things directly below their heads. I recall mentioning to both Pete Williams and Lee Fletcher some while ago how I strongly suspect that one of the reasons these fish flash (turn on one side and swim temporarily flank down) is to allow them to view the riverbed when searching for smaller particles of food that get caught amongst the gravel, debris, etc. If one watches barbel gorging over a bed of caddis grubs or even maggots, for example, this natural form of behaviour becomes rife and increasingly frequent throughout the shoal.

So, having turned on either flank (usually away from the direction of the bank), if the barbel's visionary capacity then allows them to view the whereabouts of such small morsels of food, how much of a role does it play in enabling them to distinguish terminal tackle lying against the natural appearance of the riverbed?

Come to think of it Dave, isn't the very suspicion that barbel can indeed distinguish our lines/rigs from their natural surroundings a primary reason why so many of us feel it appropriate to use clear mainlines, hooklengths, back leads and super duper camouflaged weights?

Now, if the fish truly are completely stupid and cannot learn through experience, I guess it kind of makes you wonder why the heck we go to such great lengths to fool the brainless things, doesn't it?

To bring this very interesting and somewhat contentious subject to a close, I'd best not remind readers too deeply of the barbel's ability to give extremely delicate bites, and how they most certainly can change their natural feeding habits to the point that they test and, in some cases, totally avoid picking up hookbaits. After all, I wouldn't want to give those expert thingamabobs more reason to again, and no doubt quite tediously, argue otherwise. Anyway, I reckon that particular subject's already been done to death a few hundred times more than it ought to have been. Along with possibly hundreds of other C.A.T readers, have you not become sick of it, too?

I reckon that if barbel were truly intelligent that they wouldn't need to get caught to 'learn' that our baits and tackle are best avoided. But as you say, Steve, I'm sure this one will run and run, because if there's one thing anglers like more than barbel like pellets it's an argument! When it comes to end rigs I always like to keep things as simple as possible. I get the impression that many newcomers to barbel fishing have a carping background and can overcomplicate their rigs. To what extent do you think choice of hook, hooklink and end rig affects success with barbel?

I couldn't agree more with your opening line. In my experience, simple set-ups definitely prove to be the most efficient when it comes to barbel fishing.

Having said that - although it may sound obvious - I feel that choice of hook, length of hooklength, hooklength material and weight of the lead play key roles in determining whether we will catch on the day.

There are, of course, sessions during which virtually any set-up and presentation will bring us success. I believe, however, that if one goes to the river with the view to adapting their approach to how the fish react on any given day, they are likely to enjoy a higher rate of success throughout the season than if they remain a little more set in their ways.

If you follow the principles outlined in my reply to whether barbel are intelligent, you will recognise how a rig/set-up that does the business for us one day may not be so successful the next time we visit the swim.

Undoubtedly, I find one of the primary effects dividing the potential of success from failure regards little more than the adjustment of the hooklength. These days, many modern barbel enthusiasts appear brainwashed by some strange notion that the hooklength should never exceed 12in to 18in. Just imagine how detrimental to your chances that principle can be when it comes to trying to coax a fish that simply refuses to come to within your limits.

I recall a particular swim on a Trent tributary where the fish were so pressured that 'proper bites' where pretty sparse using any hooklength below five feet - even when incorporating a hair rig and flying back lead. In the daylight hours, five to six feet fluorocarbon hooklengths tipped with 2in of braid were often the order of the session. Otherwise yet another frustrating blank was almost surely on the cards.

So, whilst I certainly agree with importance of keeping things simple (usually on an instantly adjustable and breakaway running set-up when static bait fishing), I always like to apply a degree of versatility to my tactical armoury.

This interview concludes here.

The full text of this article was originally published in Coarse Angling Today