Nightwing

In some states over here in Yankland, you can buy baby carp in tackle shops for use as live bait! About $2 per dozen, if I remember correctly, for 3 to 4 in. long specimens. Ah..if only I could figure out an economical way to ship them overseas, I could make a mint! BTW..you can purchase live, netted adults, of up to 40 lbs for just a few dollars(again...gotta figure a way to ship em to the U.K....I wonder what the ticket cost would be for a water filled with 30 and 40 lb wildies?)

Ah, hot dogs, frankfurters, weiners... A long standing American carp bait if ever there was one! The very FIRST carp I ever saw pursposefully caught, was on a hot dog back in the mid 70's.. Gotta give em a go this year, I think.

Very cool write up Newt. Looks like a good time was had by all.

The Great Lakes are indeed fresh water. The controversy as to if they are really steelhead has raged for years, with most west coast steelheaders saying they are "just" rainbows, but with fisheries people(even those from the west coast) , and fisherman from about everywhere else considering them steelhead. They LOOK and act exactly like their western cousins, in that they develope the size, the power, and the chrome coloration of "true" steelhead. I think the fisheries people allow the "loophole" for the great lakes fish due to the origin of the strain(Oregon and N. Cal fish, well over 100 years ago at least for Michigan) and more importantly, that the lifestyle they lead(living in the open waters of the lakes, migrating up the rivers to spawn), is the same as a searun steelhead. Also, your account of the origin of steelhead/rainbows in the lakes is not really correct. Relatively few of the steelhead in the Lakes originated from the Skamania hatchery. Steelhead were first established in Michigan almost 130 years ago(originating from a variety of sources, the McCloud river being important), and have developed a unique strain here. Most of the Michigan rivers support a unique long established wild strain (similar to the coastal situation where each river has its own strain), the Skamania are planted primarily in a handfull of rivers, mostly in the southern lakes(St. Joseph, and Trail Creek in IN. being the primary locations). Skamiania(as you know) are a "developed" strain, as opposed to a wild strain, and have only been in the lakes for a decade or so, and while they have done well in a few locations, they represent less than 4% of the fish found here. Steelhead in other states mostly came from Michigan(the Little Manistee strain proving to be the most adaptable to other areas of the lakes), as well as a few using Umpqa and Skamania summer run strains. Truth is, however, it really doesn't matter, as like has been pointed out, rainbows and steelhead are exactly the same fish, with the same characteristics, steelhead being just a local name for "big, silvery, rainbow trout". Interesting thread to find on a U.K. list, for sure!! *oh, gotta say I love your sig, catacrafts rule!* [ 14. June 2003, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Nightwing ]

I think that these days all brown trout and sea trout are considered to be Salmo trutta trutta or Salmo trutta fario because DNA testing has shown that they are all the same species despite having different colours, sizes, habitats etc, In a similar way that all domestic dogs, from a Great Dane to a Pekinese are Canis domesticus. Maybe Vagabond can shed some light on this as I see from his profile that he has an interest in ichthyology and is a retired oceanographer? I take it then that ferox trout are a strain of brown trout? Rather like the steelhead/rainbow relationship.

Sorry friend but this is basically just plain wrong. There are NO steelheads in Scotland IMNSHO. Let me explain why. A Steelhead is a diadromous Rainbow Trout i.e. a Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) that migrates between saltwater and freshwater. Genetically your common or garden Rainbow is no different to a Steelhead. There is no gene that makes a rainbow a steelhead so you cannot transplant a steelhead gene into a rainbow, just as you can't take a gene from a Chihuahua and transplant it into a German Shepard. To have steelheads in Scotland you would need the right conditions; large lakes connected to the sea by a fairly large river system. The largest loch in Scotland is Loch Lomond. connected to the sea by the River Leven and the River Clyde. This is just not 'big' enough for steelheads, they really need BIG freswater lakes like the Great Lakes. That at least is my understanding, others may disagree with me (as I disagreed with you). Have a good weekend all, and tight lines in the new season! Nailed it, Mate. The lack of a "steelhead gene" is 100 percent correct. If any fishery is making this claim, they should be taken to task. About the only thing I would disagree with is the idea that steelhead require a large lake connected to the sea. Sufficiently large lakes(and I do mean large, as in inland seas like the Great Lakes), can support an independent(of the ocean) population of steelhead. Also, populations originating from the sea can and do exist whithout the benefit of a large lake along the river route they spawn in. So, if a population of rainbows were to become established in a coastal area of your country and managed to breed in local rivers, they would by definition eventualy "become" steelhead. They would not, however, be steelhead because of some genetic manipulation, but instead, only because of their access to the sea. [ 14. June 2003, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: Nightwing ]

If that is the fishery in question, there is not a chance on Gods green earth that steelhead are dwelling there.... You are quite correct corydorus, a tiny pond like that could suport only stockies. Steelhead genes are a misnomer anyway, as there are many strains of migratory rainbows, many of which produce steelhead if their pattern includes a stint in either the ocean or a very large lake. So, there is no single "steelhead gene" anyway. Simply introducing a bit of steelhead genetics in to the mix won't change a thing about fish kept under such circumstances, they will be the result of their environment, not their genetics. And "blue" rainbows have been a novelty for pond owners over here for a long time(as have albino and "golden" rainbows). Nothing more than a selected color morph, isolated through inbreeding. Not something that is going to create a better fight, for certain. [ 14. June 2003, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: Nightwing ]

We have them in the Great Lakes also, but like the previous poster noted, they are wild, free ranging in tens of thousands of square miles of open water. Nothing at all like a pond stocky. Any sufficienly large water can produce a "steelhead" in form, but no way a small pond could do it, as the color itself(the chrome silver), is a result of open water adaptive camoflage. Same fish confined to a small pond looks just like any other rainbow. Nope, if you have steelhead, it's either in very large lochs, or in coastal sea areas.

Believe me Koi, as a yank, you don't bother me with that comment at all. Those fat, soft, genetic mutant bows' are pale shadows of their wild progenitors...However, I would encourage you to fish WILD rainbows if you ever get the chance...or better yet, steelhead, the rainbow taken to it's ultimate level. Those Ferox are stunners, sure nuff. Anyone know how closely related to browns they are? We have some lake run browns here(very large, some hit 30 lbs), that look very much like that.

We have a large baloon festival not far from here every year, and it seems every year someone lands in a farm field in which the farmer is not the least bit ammused, and it ends up making the evening news. Several years ago, a farmer told a balooner that he had 5 minutes to get his baloon out of the field after landing(out of fuel, I think the reason was). The balooner failed to make the time limit, the farmer promply destroyed the gondola with a front end loader.... No one landed in that field again....

If you read the text that accompanies the picture, you will see that the organization is AGAINST the gill netting, and placed the pictures only as evidence that it is happening.

Just think, you all could be like, the Hawaii of the European State!!(ya' know, island state and all).

I think that it's just that we had to have something bigger than the Yanks Yea, we have to throw you all a bone every now and then. International relations and such being important in this day and age Bet we geneticaly modified our pike to be slightly smaller than yours, just to be nice

Well Peter, now you have me thinking.....Firstly, no, we don't have as pronounced a specimen mentality here. Of course most anglers hope to catch the odd big fish, but not as many(percentage wise, at least), work specificaly toward that goal, as do anglers in the U.K. Maybe it is preciesely because we have so many fish, that this is the case? I would think that working at it here would also have dividends, now that I think of it.... So, maybe that is an answer in and of itself. 7 lbs is actualy a bit on the small size, BTW, around here, and 10 lb fish are really quite common, so now you really got me thinking... My largest, BTW, is in the low 20's. As to fishing trout lakes, most folks here associate pike with warmer waters than that prefered by trout, so no, most folks pike fishing are doing so in places other than trout waters. That being said, you give me another thing to think about, in that when we do hear of a really large pike here in the U.S(lets say, 30 lbs)it almost always comes from a large, relatively sterile, cold water(read:trout or whitefish), water. Our largest fish tend to come from either the Great Lakes proper, or a connecting water...all of which are full of trout, salmon, and herring....yep, got me thinking alot now!!! Oh, and I would fully agree that in small waters, heavily fished, the keeping of many fish most certainly IS a reason...in those waters. I have noticed another thing also, about pike at least. The shape and color of the fish I see pictured from the U.K. seems rather different than ours. Our fish are almost always spotted, whereas yours seem to usually have a series of bars. Your fish also seem to have(often, at least), a somewhat different shape, being a bit deeper, thus, maybe, weighing more at a given length? The different look makes me wonder about things like sub-species differences... But again, other than the fact that you seem to have the rare 40's that we just lack, I am also now wondering if the AVERAGE fish is really much larger over there. Still think it likely is, but maybe not by much. And there is still the muskie question. Muskies natural range is in the more southern part of the pike's range, right were the largest pike would seem to be most likely to occour(due to greater fertility of waters, and a longer growing season). I still have to believe that the muskies presence in this area, thus occupying the "large apex predator" niche, would have to have an affect on the possibility for big pike to develope. The perch thing, I think, is just the fact that ours are a different, smaller species. Mabye evolved along side of so many other predators that it found it's niche in being a bit smaller. Thanks for that reply Peter, lots to consider. [ 29. May 2003, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: Nightwing ]

I thought the catch and keep issue might come up. Wihle certainly a factor in smaller some waters, keeping fish is not a factor in something the size of Lake Michigan(22,000 square miles, over 900 feet deep). Also, there are thousands of back country lakes that may not see a fisherman for years at at time, yet, the pike still don't get much over 20 lbs. So while keeping fish is going to affect some areas, there should still be places where large pike are present. Indeed, that there seem to be none, suggests to me something else is going on. Same goes for perch, although I think that our perch are a slightly different species, and maybe long term competition from other predators has selected for smaller fish. Bottom line for both species is that over here, even in waters where keeping fish is not an issue, they still run considerably smaller than yours?? I still think the presence of larger numbers of species of predators must have something to do with it.(variety being the spice of life, however, I am not complaining).

Pike and perch, that is.. Just curious on your thoughts. Here in the U.S., our perch average less than a pound, a really large one is 2 lbs(I have only ever seen a couple this large), and our record is only around 4 lbs. Pike are similar, in that here, a really large one is 20lbs, and most areas never produce any larger. Our record is 46lbs, a freak over here. we DO have a giant pike here, that reaches 40, 50, 60lbs, but it is the muskie, another species, but again, no big perch anywhere. My "theory" is that the muskie suplants pike in the "giant pike" niche here, and the bass(smallmouth, largemouth) do the same for perch. Any different ideas?

Jigs work on a completely different priciple than do spinners or plugs, which allows for them to be used in different situations, and in different manner. If you won't believe that they can out-fish spinners and plugs, then you are missing out on an entire branch of lure fishing. As far ahead of the curve as you folks are in bait fishing, we here in the U.S. are ahead in lure fishing, so when you see jigs and soft plastics for sale here in huge numbers, trust that there is a very good reason for it.

Not Jim(an living a few thousand miles accross the pond), but I was given my first 20 gauge at age 10, my first high powerd rifle at 12.No handguns until 18, however. Never had even the slightest accident, never pointed a weapon at another human being.

All I see is a little box with an "X" in it.

Check this out. Darwinism in action http://www.nps.gov/yell/safetyvideos.htm

Yes, what of poor Yoxer? He will have to talk fishing or something equaly off-topic now, what shall he do?

I have no idea what they would be called in the U.K. They are used as a suplement in areas where the natural graze land is of poor quality.Not used much in the American east or southeast(where the climate is sufficient to provide good range grazing), but used quite a bit in the west and southwest where it is consdierably drier, and the range is of less quality. Due to your generaly wetter climate and lush grazing land, they may not even be used or available over there. As has been said, try some pet stores, lots of pellets of various types to try. Check out the results of the google search I did: http://www.google.com/ Lots of info on range cubes in the states, maybe you can use it to figure out what they are called in the U.K.

When I first "got into" carp fishing in a semi-serious way, one of the things that amazed me was the prices payed in the U.K. market for bait, and even fishing gear. Since carp fishing is not particularly popular here in the States, there is no real market for commercial baits(although that is changing). However, most everything needed can be had at either the local grocery, or, the local farm suply store, for next to nothing. We also use many things not originaly destined to catch carp, such as the most recent fad, range cubes. These are protine pellets used for cattle feed suplements, but they just so happen to be almost the perfect carp bait. And being sold for about $5 to $7 for a 50lb bag, they are cheaper than dirt!

edited due to duplicate post, sorry. [ 07. May 2003, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Nightwing ]

August 14, 2003.