Dave Lumb concludes his interview with Steve Stayner

When it comes to versatility many anglers are very limited in their approach. I like to fish two rods whenever I can, using one rod to experiment with. But there are those who are of the opinion that it's not possible to fish effectively using more than one rod. How do you feel using a second rod affects your chances?

I respect that many anglers believe it improves their prospects of catching, but it's possible that using two rods (both with baited hooks attached to terminal rigs) can result in two barbel being hooked simultaneously. I do, however, acknowledge that if such a scenario is yet to be experienced by those who regularly use two rods in one swim, they may feel it is unlikely to occur at all.

They might even assume they're more than capable of dealing with the situation should it arise. Speaking from experience, however, I'll say that the reality of hooking a barbel on a second rod whilst playing a fish on another isn't as easy to manage as one may imagine.

That's not to say I don't understand why some anglers prefer to have two separate hookbaits in the water because let's face it, Dave, two baits sensibly positioned in the same swim can increase our chances of a bite. Indeed, many anglers who advocate the practice believe having two baits in the water actually doubles their chances of at least one being taken. Strangely, however, I can honestly say that using two rods never doubled my catch-rate, as anyone contemplating the idea might expect. On the contrary, one rod always seriously out-fished the other - at an average ratio of eight or nine fish to one. (These days, especially when fishing in gin-clear water in particularly pressured areas, it may serve us well to consider that employing two rods is more likely to double our chances of spooking wary, line-shy barbel.)

In more appropriate situations, such as on big, wide rivers like the Trent, using two rods, where one of them is, say, positioned on the inside of the swim, may be a convenient means of establishing where the barbel might feed at specific times. But the way I now view it is that the potential of hooking two barbel simultaneously in the same swim, when the angler is unable to play both at the same time, far outweighs any notion I might have to adopt the practice. Either the 'unattended' rod can be pulled into the river (perhaps through line trapping, or simply forgetting to engage the free-spool mechanism, etc.), or the fish can gain sanctuary in a snag before the angler reaches the rod. No matter how remote the potential of such a disastrous occurrence might be - even when fishing notoriously difficult waters where bites are particularly difficult to come by - it becomes substantially reduced, halved or perhaps totally eradicated when using only one baited rod.

Based on my own harboured principles, Dave (although I wouldn't want to sway you or anyone else too far from a tactic they feel comfortable using), I cannot help but feel that in many instances, persistent use of two rods, both with baited hooks and especially on small rivers, promotes questionable values regarding fish welfare.

That said, I can see the value of casting and leaving a baited hook 15 to 20 yards below a hook-less feeder rig positioned steadfastly above it on a second 'dummy rod'. It's surprising just how barbel - particularly bigger fish - tend to lie well below the distance we can easily present baits on a conventional feeder set-up using one rod. Just cast the hook-less feeder rig as frequently as you normally would to keep a constant stream of food entering the swim, then sit back and wait for the downstream set-up to fool the fish that you may never have realised were present. For anyone interested, that particular tactic sometimes works to exceptional effect.

I'm glad I didn't mention using three rods now … Moving swiftly on! Earlier we touched on the apparent increase of barbel sizes nationwide. I remember back in the early nineties when my mates were fishing the Ribble they got excited by seven and eight pounders, nowadays a ten pounder hardly raises an eyebrow and the river record is over fifteen pounds. We have already seen the national record steadily rise beyond the twenty pound mark, so how big do you think barbel can grow, and which river do you think is most likely to take the record from the Ouse?

Three rods, eh? Crikey Dave! Though I hope I'm not perceived as coming on too strong by your good self and the rest of the readership, if I had my way, you'd soon have a couple of used ones for sale. Ha ha!

Anyway, you're certainly right about the average size of barbel being on the increase. Regarding what I feel might be the species' ceiling weight, I'd have to say a 24 - possibly even a 25 pounder is not beyond the realms of possibility. The way things are going it definitely wouldn't surprise me in the least to see such a leviathan banked within the next five or six years. (And to think it's only a few years ago when one of those expert thingamabobs was adamant that, due to maximum skeletal growth, it was not possible for barbel to exceed 12lb. Hmmm, I suspect he might be equally as incorrect regarding his theory that the species has no sense of smell beyond pheromonal, too).

As for which river may lift the spotlight from the Great Ouse, the first truly viable contender that looks well on its way to succeeding in the game of catch-up has to be the Wensum. There are certainly some monstrous Wensum fish tucked away under syndicated fishing, which, like Adams Mill and Kickles Farm, makes them relatively safe to publicise without fear of a posse of chasers arriving to share in the glory.

I know many anglers don't agree with them, but there's a lot of sense in more open clubs imposing publicity bans nowadays. More to the point, unless one wants to encourage the masses to their own big fish patch, there's even more sense behind anglers inflicting a strict no publicity rule on themselves, which, I'm pleased to see, is becoming an increasingly popular practice. I guess the phrase "tell 'em or show 'em nowt you don't want 'em to know" should be heeded by anyone who feels it appropriate to protect the location of big barbel they may well have found difficult to come by.

Genuine big barbel captures, unsubstantiated by photographic evidence or a write-up appearing in the angling weeklies, will always spur sceptical debate within the specimen world. Last season I heard of a 22lb 3oz fish from a 'day ticket' stretch of the Trent, again 'accidentally' caught by a carp angler who simply does not want to publicise the pictures and full story because he naturally fears his fishing would be ruined. And there's a distinct likelihood that he would be right!

Rumour or not, I'm certainly not sure that the Trent should be behind any other river when we talk about taking the barbel crown from the Ouse. This big midlands venue has supported huge fish for donkey's years, and I do not doubt for one moment that a Trent 22lb plus is well within the river's capacity. As for whether the hush hush record really has already been taken from a river other than the Ouse, judging by said angler's unwillingness to step forward from the rumour mill, we may never be sure. Personally, I'd love the story to be true, but then I am an angling romantic, Dave. Besides, where would barbel angling be in the absence of a good mystery from time to time?

Behind the Trent and the Wensum, I'd have to say the Thames, the Severn and - although I never would have thought it possible until only recently - sometime in the next ten years might even see that infamous and relatively small Trent tributary produce the goods. To be truly honest though Dave, a new national record barbel from any one of around fifteen different rivers wouldn't surprise me really.

Perhaps I should point out to readers that I was joking about using three rods - I only use that many for barbel fishing on stillwaters! Seriously though (before I get lynched), there do appear to be elements of the barbel fishing fraternity who think that the sport is changing for the worse as it becomes more popular with rabble like me taking it up! So in closing, Steve, I'd like to hear your views on the current state of barbel fishing as a sport and how you see it developing in the future.

I've always been the type to speak as I see, Dave, so I'll answer that very good and final question as forthrightly as space allows.

Thankfully, to many participating anglers, barbel fishing is currently in great shape. Well, viewed through untainted spectacles and pondered in complete acknowledgement that barbel are bigger and more easily accessible than ever before, it's easy to see that there's never been a better time to be an angler of the species. Those of us that can avoid the increased levels of politics currently tearing through its core, and apparently splitting our pastime into factions, are destined to gain the most from their fishing. First and foremost, fishing is, after all, what our hobby's all about!

Media conscious anglers, however, will be only too aware of how the face of barbel angling is arguably changing for the worse - with squabbles over big fish and their whereabouts proving too high an obstacle for many anglers to scale. Admittedly, big barbel have always been big news. Now, however, as the fish get bigger and the interest in them grows equally fast, this merely serves to increase the aspect of jealousy that is par for the course in so many circles of specialist angling.

Put it this way, Dave, no one could convince me that the current specialist barbel fishing scene is absent of many two-faced anglers who are sadly envious of the results of others who, for whatever reasons, they apparently regard as more successful than themselves. Of course, they may deny what truly lies behind their motives to slate others or even stoop so low as to begin spreading slanderous and libellous comments about them. Make no mistake, however, envy is at the core of it all.

With their sometimes judgmental but always sensationalistic tabloid nature, arguably the angling weeklies help fuel the fire of envious desire and provoke the odd squabble amongst their readers. But how great it must feel to count oneself amongst those who've remained oblivious to the rise of what could be viewed as the most frightening modern medium of them all - the internet.

Admittedly, in the right hands and for educational purposes, arguably there's no finer or more comprehensive store of general knowledge on offer. I do, however, question the internet's place as a sound educational tool for the angler. On the contrary, no one could deny that this particular medium is a very loose canon, indeed.

In almost all cases, angling websites are home to open and, it has to be said, often inadequately controlled forums. Whilst some forums are relatively civil places to visit, others are dicey to say the least, simply because among a few decent guys, they appear to harbour a number of envious social misfits hell-bent on spoiling the broth. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for freedom of speech, but some of these inadequately censored imbeciles apparently need their entitlement to written opinion revoked. That's because, on the whole, they are there for no other reason than to goad situations and provoke reactions in any way possible - usually concealed behind the cloak of a pseudonym.

Amongst these very worst contributors, it has to be said that forums have also given rise to what we might label 'keyboard anglers' - those who appear to spend far too much time giving us their slant on every subject imaginable. In fact, some of these 'cyber experts' spend so much time typing what is often nonsensical claptrap that one can't help but wonder whether they actually get around to doing any fishing at all. Arguably, they appear more content adding to the poison that may well see the open internet forum become the eventual downfall of the pastime. All I can say to these guys is, if you are genuine anglers keen to secure the future of the pastime for the next generation, think seriously before hitting the enter key and sending what might just represent another nail in its coffin.

At the very least, the domino effect of squabbling on these forums is that the rubbish found on them eventually reaches the angler who'd much sooner not become involved or hear of the latest fallout between so-called respected anglers. In my opinion, these massive and very public ego clashes are grossly unhealthy for fishing in general. They're also a reason why I feel that inadequately moderated Internet forums are seriously bad news, merely for the fact that they offer the means to air views that clearly would not be allowed in any other medium or written by right-minded people. Admittedly the current bulk of contributors to most forums are decent chaps with something between their ears, but how long before the no-brainers see them all off?

Sit back and take stock, Dave, and you'll probably see just how increasingly suspect this whole barbel fishing malarkey is becoming. Well, I mean, grown men squabbling, spreading libellous comments and even coming to blows because of the amount of fat accumulating around the fish's midriff. Just how sad, stupid, but unfortunately very real is that?

From a fishing perspective and increased average size of the quarry, one could say there's definitely never been a better time to become a barbel angler. But be warned, in the long run, doing so might turn out to be something of a health risk.

As for how I see things developing in the future. Hmmm, a long look into my crystal ball reveals a time when it will be compulsory for all barbel anglers and big fish chasers to wear boxing gloves. I can see that happening about ten years before the whole pastime gets banned, amidst the mindless forum contributors' apparent refusal to accept any responsibly for its demise. Ironic, eh?

I have to admit to sharing your concerns about the influence the Internet is having, not just on barbel fishing as I can assure you that pike fishing is suffering in a similar way. At its best the Internet is a great place to get information and share ideas. Without the 'net this interview probably wouldn't have taken place for example. I must say I have found your answers thought provoking throughout this interview, which I'll bring to a close by thanking you for your time and trouble in answering my questions. I just hope neither of us becomes the subject of too much vitriol on the Internet for the opinions we've expressed!

Naturally, if that really is the case, I'm pleased I've given you something to think about, Dave. My sincere thanks go to both your good self and James for giving me the opportunity to do so. By the way, regarding the potential of our receiving opposition on the forums, I reckon you can guarantee that it will happen to some degree. As usual, the wolves are almost sure to be lying in wait for something new into which they can sink their vitriolic fangs. The question is, which one of us is likely to receive the biggest bite? Thanks again Dave. Despite what I'm almost sure to learn via the Internet after this interview goes public, you really are a smashing fellow. Be sure to remember that when those forum snipers are doing their best to grind you down. Best fishes. Steve Stayner.

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