Vagabond

Before you all get too excited about telling the age of a fish by counting growth rings on the scales, consider this ..... Fish eventually reach a point where they cease to grow very much - if the fish doesn't grow, its scales don't grow ( a mature fish might even lose weight, and if so, the edges of the scales become eroded) If the scales don't grow, then they won't be showing extra growth rings, will they? Note too that if a fish loses scales, it grows new ones, called regeneration scales - which show no growth rings at all. Scale rings will only tell you the rate of growth in the years of a fish's life up to maturity - very useful information, provided you are aware of its limitations.

Brilliant, Newt Am up early to go fishing - can't wait to tell my buddies thisa one......

Brilliant, Newt Am up early to go fishing - can't wait to tell my buddies thisa one......

At the moment, it seems every outdoorsman in Texas wants to take me fishun - will let you know how things pan out.

Many thanks for the offer of a trip out in August, Davy - will look forward to that. Am off to Texas in a few days, and will E-Mail you when I get back. Cheers

Too right ! It takes me back to the old days of the Third Division South. Only one club went up in those days, and Brighton had on several occasions led the table, only to get pipped at the post on the last game. However, on one glorious night at the Goldstone Ground, it was the last match of the season, and the Albion needed to win to secure promotion (and of course the championship of Div 3 South) - I was there! Would they mess it up again? Not this time - they were playing Newport County, and when Albion had cracked in four goals in the first quarter-hour we felt they might stand a chance! Albion won the match 6-0 Those were the days - Glenn Wilson (capt) played a blinder and so did Jimmy Langley - the first of the winger-backs and years before his time. They were hardly ever called the Seagulls in those days, though - it was all "ALBION!"

Too right ! It takes me back to the old days of the Third Division South. Only one club went up in those days, and Brighton had on several occasions led the table, only to get pipped at the post on the last game. However, on one glorious night at the Goldstone Ground, it was the last match of the season, and the Albion needed to win to secure promotion (and of course the championship of Div 3 South) - I was there! Would they mess it up again? Not this time - they were playing Newport County, and when Albion had cracked in four goals in the first quarter-hour we felt they might stand a chance! Albion won the match 6-0 Those were the days - Glenn Wilson (capt) played a blinder and so did Jimmy Langley - the first of the winger-backs and years before his time. They were hardly ever called the Seagulls in those days, though - it was all "ALBION!"

Terrible news, and my sympathy to the Grantham Angling Club. I'm a bit too far away to offer practical help, but hope my subs as individual member of ACA, SAA and RSSG will be put to good use to help restore this river. I can only echo Alan Roe's request that everyone makes sure they are individual members of one or more of ACA ,SAA, and RSSG. Please don't leave it to the other bloke to put his hand in his pocket, 'cos if he's leaving it to you, then nothing will get done.

Terrible news, and my sympathy to the Grantham Angling Club. I'm a bit too far away to offer practical help, but hope my subs as individual member of ACA, SAA and RSSG will be put to good use to help restore this river. I can only echo Alan Roe's request that everyone makes sure they are individual members of one or more of ACA ,SAA, and RSSG. Please don't leave it to the other bloke to put his hand in his pocket, 'cos if he's leaving it to you, then nothing will get done.

Just make sure you bite the sods before they bite you.

Oi aint scared of no bleeden teef!

I love wrasse, especially the way they smile at you with their National Health dentures

Newt, I think in future, when responding to your posts, I shall use Norfolk dialect. Fare yee wellll t'gither

Newt, I think in future, when responding to your posts, I shall use Norfolk dialect. Fare yee wellll t'gither

Have now completed your questionnaire - out of all the different waters I fish, I have elected to answer on behalf of the smaller streams, as these suffer most from cormorants. Commercial fishery owners can to some extent protect their fish stocks - they are on the spot most of the daylight hours. Small streams are usually leased by small clubs, and fished by few anglers. Many days see no anglers there at all, so cormorants can wreak havoc on such easily caught fish as roach and dace. There has been a serious decline in dace numbers on many small streams. PS Can't agree with Chesters here - if this project convinces just one biologist that cormorants are a serious threat to our fisheries, it will have been worthwhile. [ 13 April 2002, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: Vagabond ]

Have now completed your questionnaire - out of all the different waters I fish, I have elected to answer on behalf of the smaller streams, as these suffer most from cormorants. Commercial fishery owners can to some extent protect their fish stocks - they are on the spot most of the daylight hours. Small streams are usually leased by small clubs, and fished by few anglers. Many days see no anglers there at all, so cormorants can wreak havoc on such easily caught fish as roach and dace. There has been a serious decline in dace numbers on many small streams. PS Can't agree with Chesters here - if this project convinces just one biologist that cormorants are a serious threat to our fisheries, it will have been worthwhile. [ 13 April 2002, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: Vagabond ]

Yes Beccy, we know - that's the point that (rather sarcastically) I was making. Unfortunately this more recent research has apparently not helped the anglers' case very much. Rather, it has confirmed what we already knew, but we are told that "further research is needed" - the standard politicians' excuse for avoiding the issue. The DEFRA report is a very sore point in fishing circles - some anglers are near-apoplectic over it. It might be worth your while to do a search on this forum under "cormorants" - plenty of background information should be there. I hope you can turn up some realistic figures on fish consumption and would be very interested in a synopsis of your project when it is complete. As a starting point, my own calculation assumes cormorants eat around 16% of their own body weight in fish per day (various papers agree with this sort of figure), which means about 500 to 700 grams of fish are eaten daily - for a year that translates into 180 to 255 kg so lets call it roughly 200 kg per year. So every five cormorants on a fishery eat ONE METRIC TONNE of fish per year! Thats a lot of fish - and if you ask Dr Bruno Broughton nicely, he will doubtless tell you what annual productivities and standing stocks (of fish) might be expected in various types of fishery - I haven't got those figures at my finger tips, but he has. However, I doubt if many fisheries could stand a yearly loss of around five metric tonnes of fish to feed a couple of dozen cormorants Good luck with your project.

Yes Beccy, we know - that's the point that (rather sarcastically) I was making. Unfortunately this more recent research has apparently not helped the anglers' case very much. Rather, it has confirmed what we already knew, but we are told that "further research is needed" - the standard politicians' excuse for avoiding the issue. The DEFRA report is a very sore point in fishing circles - some anglers are near-apoplectic over it. It might be worth your while to do a search on this forum under "cormorants" - plenty of background information should be there. I hope you can turn up some realistic figures on fish consumption and would be very interested in a synopsis of your project when it is complete. As a starting point, my own calculation assumes cormorants eat around 16% of their own body weight in fish per day (various papers agree with this sort of figure), which means about 500 to 700 grams of fish are eaten daily - for a year that translates into 180 to 255 kg so lets call it roughly 200 kg per year. So every five cormorants on a fishery eat ONE METRIC TONNE of fish per year! Thats a lot of fish - and if you ask Dr Bruno Broughton nicely, he will doubtless tell you what annual productivities and standing stocks (of fish) might be expected in various types of fishery - I haven't got those figures at my finger tips, but he has. However, I doubt if many fisheries could stand a yearly loss of around five metric tonnes of fish to feed a couple of dozen cormorants Good luck with your project.

If you get hold of a copy of "Birds of the Western Palearctic" and turn to "Cormorant - Food" Pages 203/4 of Volume 1, there is a long list of papers showing:- 1/ Cormorants eat a hell of a lot of fish 2/ They go for the easiest and most abundant prey fish available - ie flatfish in estuaries, salmonids in Scottish lochs, perch in Windermere, cyprinids in lowland waters etc etc. I don't know how many such studies are necessary to convince the Government that action to control cormorants is needed (I suspect they require an infinite number, but thats just me being cynical - or is it?) Most of these papers date from the 40s, 50s and 60s. Neither the habits of cormorants, nor those of politicians, has changed since then.

If you get hold of a copy of "Birds of the Western Palearctic" and turn to "Cormorant - Food" Pages 203/4 of Volume 1, there is a long list of papers showing:- 1/ Cormorants eat a hell of a lot of fish 2/ They go for the easiest and most abundant prey fish available - ie flatfish in estuaries, salmonids in Scottish lochs, perch in Windermere, cyprinids in lowland waters etc etc. I don't know how many such studies are necessary to convince the Government that action to control cormorants is needed (I suspect they require an infinite number, but thats just me being cynical - or is it?) Most of these papers date from the 40s, 50s and 60s. Neither the habits of cormorants, nor those of politicians, has changed since then.

Is this the fish? One of the porgies - had some of those, and plenty of other goodies, on the Texas coast

Is this the fish? One of the porgies - had some of those, and plenty of other goodies, on the Texas coast

Anchored ????? We were being towed !!!! and towed, as they say in Norfolk "Staarn faarst" The guy nearest has strapped himself to the rail - strictly speaking not allowed by IGFA rules - which are apparently designed to give the fish a chance of pulling you overboard

Agree with all posters who are saying "Well done that lad" It encourages all of us that perch of that size exist. This Wednesday got my first 4 lb perch in 60 years fishing - I know how pleased I was, so can guess how the lad felt. BTW for followers of the perch threads, this latest fish was from a different water to Deerdrink (to which latter the river closed season applies) As you can see, the fish is in spawning condition - so for most of the year it would be around three-and-a-half pound. [ 13 April 2002, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Vagabond ]

Agree with all posters who are saying "Well done that lad" It encourages all of us that perch of that size exist. This Wednesday got my first 4 lb perch in 60 years fishing - I know how pleased I was, so can guess how the lad felt. BTW for followers of the perch threads, this latest fish was from a different water to Deerdrink (to which latter the river closed season applies) As you can see, the fish is in spawning condition - so for most of the year it would be around three-and-a-half pound. [ 13 April 2002, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Vagabond ]