What would you rather Catch

[Guest IanG]

Small debate going on in our club about the future stocking pattern we should aim for in terms of carp. On the one hand there is a presumption that we should plan stock densities and patterns to provide 30s and 40s in the future "as this is what most carp fishermen want and we will lose members if we cant keep pace with commecial fisheries" .This policy will thin out stocks to low levels and bse selective in keeping and re stocking only fast growing strains(specimen fish).

 

On the other hand the thought is that in providing a water which contains a larger density, more mixed and natural head of fish (more tugs on the line)will continue to be the meat of the average club angler. This would appeal to the wider range of potential members.

 

Now I know you can cut up these two approaches (high end density with one or two specmens to give a half way house or a GREY solution but thats akin to doing nothing (fence sitting).

 

I also appreciate that we are talking about optimum stocking levels for the body of water involved not to mention the species ballance.

 

BUT what do you think the average carper will be looking for from a club water in the future given they can always pay the ever increasing prices at commercial specimen carp waters, here and abroad, if they want that sort of fishing.

 

IanG

[Guest Steve Burke]

If you've more than 1 water the solution is of course to cater for different anglers on each water.

 

With just the 1 water, the question is what do the members consider is a specimen carp? There's no way a heavily stocked water is going to produce monster carp as there's going to be insufficient food. However 20s are certainly on the cards and many carp anglers would be happy with these.

 

To get 30lb plus carp you can either grow them on (unlikely in a water with a large head of carp), or buy them. However British 30lbers rarely come on the market. Why should anyone sell them? Most of the big carp offered for sale probably come from the continent and either won't have a health certificate or even, I'm told, will come with a forged one. Also continental carp may be carrying germs and parasites that they are immune to but our native carp have never been exposed to. Thus stocking with big carp is highly dangerous to the existing stocks and replacing them can be very expensive.

 

So to conclude you're not likely to be able to get hold of 30lb plus carp without considerable risk. It looks as though your members will have to be content with 20s. Perhaps a better way of spending the money presumably available might be to look around for another less densely stocked water and make that a specimen carp fishery where you can grow fish on.

 

One important bit of advice to anyone starting a new water. Don't stock it for at least 1, preferably several, years. This will allow the food chain to get established and will make a tremendous difference. One lost year's fishing will soon be forgotten.

 

 

 

------------------

Wingham Fisheries

www.anglersnet.co.uk/fisheries/wingham.htm

[Guest Matt@Trafford]

Ian,

Just a quickie mate.How big is the lake in question? Many anglers now aim their fishing at the 'availability' of twenties or even thirties, hopefully having learned to run before walking. I personally wouldn't recommend going for that forty only a few months after taking up addictive insanity,ahem I mean carping!!!

 

My point is, when I first started carping my ultimate goal was to catch a double.From there I began,as many others have,to progress to that first twenty.After that, maybe mid twenty and after that milestone anything above tends to be a bonus,be it a thirty,a forty...wharever!( At least up north this seems to be the case!!!)

If the lake was large enough and if funds available to do it,would it be possible to somehow divide your water ( I know, easier said than done!) thus giving more of a choice of quarry,say fish up to 20-24lb in one lake,having fairly high stocking levels of double figure carp and then perhaps the other 'half' being designated to larger fish,but with a lower stocking rate so as to increase growth potential for the bigger fish.This would give rise to a venue whereby anglers can "cut their teeth" on the higher stocked lake which would build confidence and experience to a newcomer and also help to teach them the basics of fish care/handling.

 

Hmmm,in an ideal world perhaps, eh mate???!!!

Good luck with your decision,and don't forget you've still got "phone a friend" and "50/50"!

Matt

[Guest davidP]

I think it depends on what sort of angler (and number of anglers) you want. If you just want to shift membership cards then without doubt go for high density - people want easy fishing and will pay for it. If you go for the out-and-out specimen water then yes, you will attract the specimen anglers and maybe you can charge more but (and it's a big but) the number of anglers you can accomodate is hugely reduced by the fact that a) the angler will want to stay several days and specimen anglers by-and-large will not fish waters where every peg contains an angler whereas anglers of high density carp waters actually seem to enjoy it!

 

From a club point of view I think it really depends on what you have in terms of waters. If you only have 1 lake then I think going specimen is risky. Unless the water is very low cost to rent/run then you'll end up with low membership (because Joe Average won't join) & high fees (because Joe Average won't join) which almost turns you into a syndicate. Going high density will without doubt get you more bums on boxes but they aren't necessarily the sort of bums that clubs need because they don't contribute back to the club (other than financially) and will have no qualms in leaving if the situation changes (ie cheaper competitors, easier fishing elsewhere etc).

 

I think the ideal scenario is having several waters and trying to create both types. This is what we did in our club and it was reasonably successfull. We used the money provided by all the Joe Averages fishing the high density waters to create and to a certain extent subsidise specimen waters and 'all round' waters for the more 'traditional' club angler.

This does have it's risks however. It is very easy to become a little blasé and too reliant on the income from the easy venues. This happened to us and so when our main winter and then summer bagging waters were more or less wiped out in quick succession by a combination of Council incompetance and local building work (cutting off the main water supply) we lost over 500 members (from 1400) in two years. The financial blow was enormous and it severely compromised the plans we had for the other waters. It took an awful lot of work and dedication to get the club back on an even keel and even now 10 years on the recovery is not fully complete.

 

Reflecting on this situation one of the things it brought home to me very strongly is that I don't think clubs spend enough money on getting the right advice. With the best will in the world, most club committees are made up of enthusiastic amatures who have their hearts in the right place but who simply do not have the knowledge to make decisions that could influence the next 20 years of the waters in question. People who take the time to give something back to clubs and angling have my utmost respect, but in too many cases the people who shout loudest and protest longest get their way and their answer is all too often that universal panacea 'buy more fish'.

It always seems so expensive to hire in consultants at hundreds of pounds a day when that money could be used to buy real fish, yet the reality is that the answers these people give can often recoup the expense of hiring them in a very short time indeed. Is it more expensive to spend thousands of pounds and hundreds of hours trying to create the perfect fishery or to pay a consultant a few hundred to tell you the water is biologically unsuitable for what you're trying to do? I sometimes think that there's a little bit of envy in there as well - people resent paying what they see as a weeks wages to 1 man for a few hours work, especially as in some cases they think they know more than him anyway!

 

I would also include financial advice in this as well. It's very easy for angling club turnovers to get into tens of thousands of pounds and this in turn leads people into a false sense of security because the big figures blind them into feeling they're doing ok. The Treasurer is in a vital position yet in many cases has no financial training at all. To this day I suspect I became Treasurer on the strength of the fact that I wore a suit to meetings (having come straight from work) and because I worked for the Inland Revenue and so 'knew about money' (I was a programmer!). I look back now at some of the decisions I allowed through and some that I made and I really find it difficult to believe that we didn't see what the result would be. Yet they were all made with the best of intentions and often without disagreement from anybody. We were fortunate in having a local accountant who was an angler and would do the yearly accounts for a membership card. He helped prevent us from making one or two extremely dodgy decisions but I must say that if I was to do the job agin I would make much more use of his skills, even if it meant paying him the going rate. It is absolutely vital that budget control is rigidly adhered to. It's often not the big spends that cause the problems (because they get more discussion), but the small seemingly insignificant amounts that get passed on the nod because they are so small. The problem is they add up and often to far more than people realise. Good budget control and planning can help overcome this, and an accountant knows this better than most!

 

Hmmmm - so have I answered your question. Well sort of I hope. It's a very big decision to put all your eggs in one basket which is what I think gearing yourself to 30's & 40's is doing. And who's to know if in ten years time the big fishing fashion won't be for trying to catch 100 fish an hour rather than

a forty??

 

Whatever decision your club makes then I wish you well and hope that it is successful. Just make sure you have all the facts to support the ideas before you make it.

 

David Priddy

Datchet

[Guest IanG]

THANK YOU

David,Matt and Steve,

Brilliant feedback, Steve I think you missed the point a bit in that we are not looking to Buy 30s but rather manage the densities of fish to accommodate the size and number of fish we aim for as a long term plan. My real question fishes for your veiws on what the average club member (our sorce of revenue) will be attracted to in the next 5-10-15 years as to some extent this will feed into our plan.

BTW I'm in the camp of a good head of mixed size and ballanced accross a mix of species.

 

Thank you all for such intelligent, experienced and useful insight( keep it coming)

IanG

[Guest IanG]

sorry Im stuttering and delete post does not work!!

 

[This message has been edited by IanG (edited 24 March 2000).]

[Guest Wordbender]

Ian, basic question, mate, but what did the current members say on the subject at the last AGM?

 

For what it's worth, I'd 'profile' the current membership, tailor the stock to suit their type of fishing and let the ultra-dedicated speccy boys find their own head-banger waters.If your club is successful with the type of stock you have now - then cater for those who have supported you.

 

Power to the people and all that. :-)

[Guest RobStubbs]

Ian,

I think you have to tailor the water a bit to what the members want but if you do develope the fishery into a 'big fish water' you will lose grass root members and attract members from further afield. Personally I prefer the latter but in my experience most club anglers don't.

 

You will have to bring on the current fish by careful fishery managment always assuming the existing fish have the growth potential to go 30lb +. You will also have to remove fish making it harder fishing for the same small fish in the short term.

 

I think ultimately the club must decide what it wants and get the backing of the members. You will need to tell them the plans otherwise when the fishing gets worse in the interim the committee could all get voted out.

 

Good luck !

 

Rob.

[Guest waterman1013]

Rob

 

Can you absolutely guarantee that we would be voted out - I could go fishing again, yipee!!

 

Mike

[Guest IanG]

I'll second that Mike.

 

Tel - re AGM they avent a clue what they want except a very loud minority who only think about their own wants and in the NOW timeframe.

IanG

AT LAST YOUVE COME OF AGE AND JOINED US