The Traditional Fisherman's Forum

I'd say it very much depends on how big the chap is - though at a guess I'd venture a guess and say he looks diminutive. Based on that I'd go with Snape's estimate. Not less that 8, in my opinion It's a lovely looking fish, regardless.

7 -8lb seems about right to me, though I wasn't aware of barbel in the Clyde! I've had several barbel from the Ribble whilst flyfishing for salmon. Many coarse fish have far more catholic tastes than they are given credit for. I've had big roach firmly hooked in the mouth on small trolled plugs on Windermere and both carp and bream on small deadbaits intended for perch on a club lake.

Ian wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:27 pm Yes this fish was caught by a salmon angler and he has more whiskers than the fish.a few seem to fall to salmon guys each year.i take it they must be prone to eating minnows,because too many have been caught on spinners by the salmon anglers.
I’ve never saw one in the flesh,but I would have guessed about 6 or 7lb.a small one for the clyde.

If I had barbel in a stretch of river - i’d be fishing for those - not the S.T’s - especially if this specimen was a small one. We shall see if you have or not Ian in the ‘diary’.

It's larger than my PB of 8 inches, so it's a monster....

Thanks
BB

I'd go 8 or 9. Could be wildly out, though. So difficult to guess from a photograph.
Do many target barbel in the Clyde?

The EA have a complete ban on stocking Barbel into all rivers not facing East.
The conversation gets immediately closed-down as soon as Barbel into Sussex rivers is mentioned.
NFC.........!!

NFC?

No Further Comment.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(which, in itself may be a comment!)

I would go 7-8lbs, jealous of the beard.