StuMac

I think her point is that in highly productive, natural waters you can have specimen fish of all types, but in waters of marginal quality the presence of pike will probably prevent many prey species reaching specimen proportions. Britsh anglers have a particular obsesion with catching big fish, and I think this distorts our view slightly. I suppose its a choice, do you want to fish in a natural enviroment or a managed one. The other point is that the PAC literature tends to be a highly seletive reading. There is a school of thought in Holland that waters with lots of weed tend to be jack waters, whereas clearer waters tend to have bigger pike. How does that fit in with Norfolk?? Anyway - I thought Peter Waller would approve of a quote from the 1955 AT year book (I wasn't born then!) Speaking of which, I hear the Brudall stretch of the Yare is not living up to a certain person's expectations!!

"Pike in you waters" is very largely based on Winfred Frost's ideas!!

This is not as cut and dried as people make out. I actually have in front of me an article by Winifred Frost in the 1955 Angler's year book. Winifred Frost was one of the leading authorities on pike biology in her day. You will see a lot of quotes from her in the PAC stuff about pike. This article says something that the PAC never quotes!! Her basic view is that pike mainly feed on fish that are big enough to interest the angler, and that the effect of pike in a water is to *reduce* the average size of the prey fish. Rather than thining out the little ones and letting a few specimens survive, the maintain pike do the opposite, and encourage a situation where there are lots of little fish but few specimens other than large pike. There's an article by Bernard Venables suggesting this isn't true. Don't know what to make of it, but Frost is something of a megastar in the freshwater biology world!

Should that be a pentadent???

The sitaution in Scotland is not as sensible as you make out (as I'm sure you know) because coarse fishing doesn't exist legally. The law exists *only* to protect sea trout and salmon. Even brown trout come in for a hard time. If you buy a trout permit, it will usually say that you have to give wat to someone with a salmon / sea trout licence who fancies the pool you're fishing! Imagine that in England, just casting over a nice run and someone appears and tell you to hop it and there's nothing you can do! There are several lochs with game fishing interests where pike fishing is 'tolerated', but that is only because someone put a lot of time and effort into convincing the poweres that be that they were genuinely interested in only catching pike! Legally they could stop all fishing other than bona fide salmon fishing all year 'round.

I haven't for a moment suggested that pike 'indigenous' to the western highlands I think canals / hydro schemes / sporting estates had a lot to do with that. Pike in Ireland is a complete no no as far as I can see. What's more, I think the rivers in the south west of england (like the severn) would have little other than salmon and trout if they were still in their natural state. Fundementally, I think that pike are a continental species and their natural range would be limited to those parts of britain which were joined to the continient in recent geological past. As far as fish like pike are concerned, the east coast was joined to europe in this way for several thousand years by a body of brackish water. Nobody has ever suggested that fish were encased in solid ice and to suggest they have just shows you havn't really understood the arguments. "by the time they had evolved the routeways were closed. They cannot have been present at the end of the ice age, likewise Eire." Sorry but this is nonsense. All modern pike (indeed all fish) species are clearly identifiable by the end of the ice age. The idea that their biology has changed significantly since then is laughable. I am not a professional fish biologist but I do make my living by studying the biology of salt / water transport. The processes that allow fish to tolerate different salinities and allow some fish to move between them are quite well understood. Not many people realise that modern fish almost certainly evolved in freash water, probably from the embronic form of a imobile animal like the modern tunicates. These are things that live sedentary lives attached to rocks. This lava was rather like a tadpole. The subsequent colonisation of the sea by fish (as we all know, life in general evolved there and so there were already many invertebrate species there) actually involved a *loss* of kidney function which prevented the formation of large volumes of a very dilute urine, which is essential for freashwater life. This is why sea fish die in freshwater. In some sea fish the part of the kidney that makes this urine is actually absent. These fish evolved separate mechanisms to excrete the salt that they accumuated. (This change in kidney function did not occur in the sharks, which got around the problem of living in a de-hydrating environment by allowing their bodies to accumulate large amounts of urea which prevents loss of water by osmosis). These evolutionary changes were complete by the Dovonian which is a long time ago - long amphibians evolved, long, long long before the dinosaurs and awful long time before the ice age. We know this because the proteins that allow salt transport in fish are basically the same as the ones found in our kidneys. If the process had evolved in between, we could tell this by differences in gene structure. If there had been any significant evolution in the way that a fish species transports water / salt in the last 10,000 - 50,000 years, then that could be demonstrated with modern genetic techniques. If you could do that you'd have a superb scientific paper that would completely change our view of evolution. It would be so radical that you would probably have the basis for a good reaserch career and would probably lead to a professorship in zoology at a very university. Believe me people have studied this in very great depth. In biological terms fish (and all aquatic / marine organisms) fall into two groups - euryhaline fish, which can tolerate a range of different salinities, and stenohaline fish which are confined to fresh / salt water. Other good examples of the euryhlaine fish are the herring family. At the end of the ice age several herring like fish were trapped in fresh water environments as the ice retreated. Classic example is the one in L. Lomand (can't remember what its called - the powan?). Loch lomond was shut off from the sea the pile of glacial morain which is basically the land between Balloch and Dunmbarton / Clydenbank. These fish survived in their new environment because they were euryhaline. Other fish that were trapped died as the salinity fell. If you're interested read Schmidt Neilson's book 'animal physiology'.

StuMac. According to Maitland & Campbell (page 50 in 'Freshwatwer Fishes', Collins New Naturalist Library), the only true native coarse fish in Scotland are eel & sticklebacks (unless you count the whitefish powan & vendace). Pike, roach, stone loach, perch & minnow arrived by 1790; tench, bream, chub & crucian carp by 1880; common carp, goldfish, gudgeon, rudd, orfe, dace & bullhead by 1970; and ruffe by 1985. I know that and don't believe it - it just doesn't make any sense given the global distribution of pike and the range of habbitats they occupy very succesfuly in scandinavia, north america, and northern asia. Also - pike bones have been identified in the neolithic Cranochs (houses on stilts in shallow areas of the loch) on loch Tay. Pike were certainly being caught in the spey valley by 1803 (a 49 lb one too if the contemporary account is to be believed) and I have seen a map of what is now Tayside which notes that 'luce' are present in several lochs (which are now popular with the drunken ned style pike fishermen) in the middle of the 18th centuary. Also scotland was a fairly tumultuous and inaccesible place in the middle of the 18th centuary. Places that we now travel to with no problems, like the Spey Valley, and the Great Glen could only be reached safely by military expeditions at huge expense. General Wade built a huge network of roads (Cart tracks by our standards) to make military access easier as part of a 'pacification' programme. How exactly do you think pike stocking was carried out under these conditions?? There are very few active pike fishermen in the highlands of scotland, and most people simply do not understand just how many lochs actually hold pike, particularly as 95% of highland pike fishing be 'serious' anglers is probably done on two well known west coast lochs. Almost all lochs on river systems draining to the east hold pike (I can think of one individual where I've never heard of pike being caught, which has always been a mystery) and pike are present in some odd places - lochs that are 8 miles from the nearest modern road and 2000 feet up. In the 19th / 20th cent. there were quite extensive canal building and hydroelectric schemes which connected river systems and provided a number of routes across the east / west watershed. What's more, once sporting estates became established in the late 19th centuary, a lot of pike were moved around so that people could fish for them. 'Fraid I just don't buy the 'no native coarse fish in scotland at all' - much the same could be said about perch.

Pike can be viewed as post ice age colonisers of mainland Britain because they are quite good at tolerating brackish water, which is why they are found in the Baltic. Pike are much better colonists that cyprinids, which are much more sensitive to brackish water. Trout / salmon can (of course) live in sea water so they are the best colonists of all, which is how they made it to places like iceland. On a global scale pike followed the retreating ice northwards, which means that they have become one of the few freshwater species to be found right around the Northern Hemisphere. That is right across Europe, Asia and North America. This is an amazing feat which is one of the reasons why I think pike are such wonderful fish!!! During the ice age Britain was connected to Europe (although mostly covered in ice) but as the ice retreated there was a period of several thousand years when the waterways of Eastern British mainland and the continent of Europe were connected. For some of that time the N. sea was swampy land with people living on it, and for some time it was a large body of brackish water vey much like the baltic. When the ice finally retreated North, it became true sea water and effectively cut britain of from europe. Given this geological history, as a biologist I find it difficult to accept that pike are not native to *Eastward* flowing river systems in British mainland. I actually find it easier to accept they are not native to the Severn and the west country (i.e. accross the east / west water shed). Ireland was always separated by salt water. I do not accept the arguments about pike being native there, and am dubious about the western Lochs of scotland. Pike were certainly moved around scotland a lot in the 19th centuary, and it was probably aroun this time they got into the western highlands. Interestingly, it was salmon anglers who did this so they would have something to fish for when the salmon weren't biting!! They certainly went into L. Tula, which is connected to L. Awe.

There have to be no spaces in the name of the file you're trying to upload!

The argument rages about pike in Scotland!! Many salmon anglers will happlily tell you that pike are not indiginous to Scotland. I find it difficult to accept, given that the N. sea was a brackish water body with an ice dam at its N. end at the end of the last ice age. However, I find it easier to believe that the counties east / west watershed was the natural boudary. This would mean pike are indiginous to the Tay but not the severn!

I think the Ruffe question is an interesting one. Pike anglers are popularly blamed for introducing them to L. Lomond, but I have serious doubts. Carp, dace, chub, and gudgeon - I could see those being introduced in this way, because the are all specioes commonly used as bait, but Ruffe??? For a start they're not very common fish (apart from Loch Lomond it seems) in the UK. Matt Hayes was concerned about even being able to catch one at all in the Great Rod race! Has anyone *ever* used ruffe as a pike bait let alone lugged a bucket full of them to Lomond?? They've obviously made it accross the atlantic as well!

Perch - big wriggling worms!!!

Now I can paste images!! I'd like to see this sort of thing! Fishing on Lake Wanaka in New Zealand, one of these boats is very likely to come alongside and inspect your license, catch and tackle. Any minor infringment and your tackle is confiscated on the spot and you're told to stop fishing and pay a visit to the fish and game people to get it back, after paying a fine! Major infringments you're escorted ashore and your boat is confiscated!!

Yes - cracking fish taken last June from one of my favorite lochs just as the light was going, which in Scotland at this time of year means 11:15 or so!! Here's a smaller one my mate from NZ got at first light the next morning! We were fishing a combination of lures / trolled baits and this one slammed into one of the trolling floats!! Once it had dropped that it went on to take Grant's lure - it was in the mood to kill something!!!

Spaces not allowed!!

Or perhaps this - spaces not allowed!

I think I get it

How many anglers can actually identify a cormorant let alone asses how many are in a region? In my expererience a lot of anglers have strong view on this issue without having a clue what one looks like. I've seen grebes, divers, tufted ducks (yes tufted ducks!!!) and canada geese (!!!) all identified as 'cormorants'.

How many anglers can actually identify a cormorant let alone asses how many are in a region? In my expererience a lot of anglers have strong view on this issue without having a clue what one looks like. I've seen grebes, divers, tufted ducks (yes tufted ducks!!!) and canada geese (!!!) all identified as 'cormorants'.

It's strange you say pike are easy to catch on lures. I agree but its not that rare to meet a pike angler who's *never* caught a pike on a lure and has long since given up trying. Despite all the recent hype, I seldom see anyone using any method other sitting in a chair whilst fishing static deadbaits on the bottom. Dull as dish water in my opinion - I just hate sitting still and really like going afloat, although I fish baits quite a lot, I almost always troll them and if not I always fish a lure.

If people are serious about solving cormorent issue, then ban the stocking of rainbow trout into reservoirs. This just creates enviroments with unrealistically large fish populations that atract large numbers of fish eating birds, which then damage nearby, natural environments. As everyone keeps saying about pike culs, the number of predators is determined by the abundance of prey. [ 12. February 2004, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: StuMac ]

If people are serious about solving cormorent issue, then ban the stocking of rainbow trout into reservoirs. This just creates enviroments with unrealistically large fish populations that atract large numbers of fish eating birds, which then damage nearby, natural environments. As everyone keeps saying about pike culs, the number of predators is determined by the abundance of prey.

In my book humanely killing a legitimately caught fish is fine if you're going to eat it. I quite like pike and quite often knock a 4 - 5 lb one on the head for the BBQ, especially if it comes right at the end of the day so it can be eaten straight from the Loch. I think the Canadian and New Zealand rules are a good compromise - fish can only be removed if they are to be eaten. Throwing pike up the bank will get you prosecuted, as will exceding your catch limit. The other big difference is that they enforce their rules . [ 12. February 2004, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: StuMac ]

Inverness probably has some of the best pike fishing in the UK within 1 hrs drive! Free too

There's a difference between 'giving way to fishermen' and being unable to cycle at all because the towpath is completely blocked by boxes, poles etc., and then being abised when you ask someone to let you by!!!