Angling Times This Week

[Kappa]

The number of times I've heard anglers saying the size of the fish does not matter....saying its all about the experience..... in another thread someone said whether a chub is 5 lb or 3lb, whats 2lb?

 

In my experience the same anglers are usually members of Specimen Groups or travel great distances to fish at private syndicate fisheries only because they hold specimen carp, tench, bream and the lure of a PB.

 

If you are refering Wingham, its packed with predators that is one of the reasons the fish are big. One could argue that otters will cause a net increase in size as there is less competition.

 

As I've said elsewhere I drive all that way because Wingham is a unique and beautiful place to be. The are plenty of waters much much closer that have bigger tench bream and carp. If it was all about size I'd be fishing much more local pits.

 

Rich

[Anderoo]

The number of times I've heard anglers saying the size of the fish does not matter....saying its all about the experience..... in another thread someone said whether a chub is 5 lb or 3lb, whats 2lb?

 

In my experience the same anglers are usually members of Specimen Groups or travel great distances to fish at private syndicate fisheries only because they hold specimen carp, tench, bream and the lure of a PB.

 

I think I'm being misquoted here! What I meant was, if all the bigger fish get eaten, the smaller fish then become the 'big' ones, and are just as hard to catch. In time they will grow on and become even bigger. In the meantime, if anglers want to catch a proper 'big' one, they'll have to fish elsewhere.

 

For what it's worth, I put my name down for Wingham because of the lovely, peaceful tench fishing, having got to the end of my tether fishing ridiculously busy and noisy local gravel pits. Like Rich, I have lakes 15 minutes from my front door that hold bigger tench, carp and even bream than Wingham has produced. It's not just about size. I personally have no interest in the carp and I have only recently started trying to catch the bream because they're such head-bangers. One of those a season would be so rewarding, regardless of size. Just my tuppenth worth

 

(Although they are big!)

[tiddlertamer]

Sorry, Anderoo. What do you mean by this? I really cannot work it out. All the bream I have caught (and have seen being caught) have been nothing but dead limp.

 

Perhaps the ones you target listen to ACDC ?

 

Simon

 

I caught a large river bream on the Hampshire Avon recently.

 

At 5lb 10 oz I was, well chuffed.

 

Whilst it didn't strip off yards of line, it went bonkers under my rod where I had hooked it, banging its head around, and but for its lack of long golden flowing locks, would surely have been a contender in air guitar contest...

[Anderoo]

No, I meant they're hard to catch (I'm the one banging my head!).

[Steve Walker]

The number of times I've heard anglers saying the size of the fish does not matter....saying its all about the experience..... in another thread someone said whether a chub is 5 lb or 3lb, whats 2lb?

 

In my experience the same anglers are usually members of Specimen Groups or travel great distances to fish at private syndicate fisheries only because they hold specimen carp, tench, bream and the lure of a PB.

 

You are missing the point by a mile - some people will set out to catch unusually large fish and will go to great trouble to do so, the question is whether the absolute size of an unusually large fish matters.

[Anderoo]

I guess some people, when they hear 'private syndicate fisheries', think 'big fish'. I think, 'thank god, some peace and quiet!'.

 

Ninety per cent of all my fishing is done within 20 minutes of my house though, I'm very lucky here to have lots of peaceful rivers to fish, although that's more Sept - March. (Nearly there!)

 

The lakes, although containing some very large fish, are just a complete nightmare.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Anderoo

[Dick Dastardly]

We seem to have gone some way off topic here but thats often the way with good conversation!

 

Ive been a member of several very exclusive "private syndicates" Ive even ran a few! Let me assure you of one thing though.....they are all very very different! As Anderoo says most people are mislead into thinking big money,big fish,rotas,strict rules,impossible for the "average angler" to get in..............................

 

And in reflection I suppose (other than rotas allthough we have a days fished limit) that sums up Wingham! BUT thats not what the place or its members are really about.The place and its fishing are just captivating! Its kept like this by the limited membership (around 20 on the coarse lake) and limiterd fishing time.

 

Yes it may have the potential for a British record Bream but so do a lot more other waters as well these days.The fishing there is certainly a lot harder than some of these other venues.So surely if we were driven soley by a record we would be fishing "easier" venues?

 

The big fish in Wingham certainly do draw my self and most of the others but like we keep saying there is just so much more. The place wouldnt work (in fact Steve wouldnt allow it to) as a high pressure,record or bust,intense type of syndicate.The water it self wouldnt ever be able to realise its true potential if that was allowed,neither would it really be viable as the type of angler who wants that sort of thing would simply not be satisfied with his results there and spend his money else where.

 

You really need to visit the place for a session to understand what we are trying to say......................and there lays a major difference between Wingham,the manager and the syndicate members when compared to other quality "big fish" syndicate waters.....no other offers out side people the chance to fish there for a few days each year and for free at that!

 

Like I said I cant explain the place but please dont knock it till youve been there as thats the only way you will ever understand the set up,the owner or the members!

[arbocop]

You guys make a lot of very valid and interesting points. There does always seem to be something wrong and killing fish somewhere along the line, and it seems to regularly change as a few of you have said, maybe it is the press trying to sell papers.

 

Or maybe they do have a point in what they say, theres always people who read the press and say well that must be right, look at all the evidence etc etc, but there is also always people on the opposite side who say that BECAUSE its in the papers it cant possibly be true, or atleast thats how they come across.

 

I agree that the otter problem is being thrown out of proportion, but it is having an effect none the less. There is more otters, and less of there staple food around, the eel, which is a corner stone species that the nature needs to keep things running properly.

 

And there is also less natural predators for the otter. which is a major problem, the same as reintroducing beavers into scotland. Without a natural predator to prey on the otter is that nothing will keep there numbers down. They will carry on increasing there numbers untill they exhaust there food supply and then die off themselves. You never hear that side of the otter story from the otter huggers out there, i bet if people started to introduce wolves to keep the otter numbers down you would see as much anti wolf stuff in the otter huggers worlds and you see anti otter stuff in the fishing world.

 

I'm not sure there is anything mysterious killing fish - it's simply reported so much that everyone assumes there is. There are lots of ways that a fish can die - and always have been - ask a Biologist.

 

As regards natural predators for the otter, we are forgetting the major killer - roads. Not a natural predator but one that kills huge numbers of all manner of wildlife species. The otter would not die of starvation in any river. If the river didn't suit it or food hard to come by it would move up or downstream, til it came to another river or the sea and fish there. En route it is likely to come into contact with all manner of hazards, towns, roads, fishing nets, weirs - all sorts of things. As a result they will never reach anything like the populations there were pre 1900's in England or Wales and it is unlikely that they would in Scotland - their current UK stronghold.

 

An incidental observation - even where there are Salmonids in relatively good numbers they are still more likely to be eating shellfish, crabs and the like from the estuary as they are big fish. They are easier to catch, we have chinese mitten crab populations moving up the Thames - these will be a massive problem in the future. We need all the help we can get to kill off these aliens.

 

I propose a formula:

 

Balanced fish populations + reduced canalisation + good riparian habitat management - pollutants and nitrates being emptied into the river = healthy river ecosystem, more otters (and other species) and happy anglers and naturalists.

 

On another note - the wolves and beavers - the proposal is to introduce them into Rhum or Eigg, not the mainland. They will therefore be contained so that the success or otherwise can be evaluated.

[Kappa]

The lakes, although containing some very large fish, are just a complete nightmare.

 

7 lakes (probably more) with 11lb+ tench within 10 minutes of you, at least two of those have done tench over 12lbs!

 

Rich

 

oops forgot one make it 8 lakes!

Edited August 7, 2009 by Richard Capper

[Anderoo]

7 lakes (probably more) with 11lb+ tench within 10 minutes of you, at least two of those have done tench over 12lbs!

 

Rich

 

oops forgot one make it 8 lakes!

 

Fancy a session?

 

Maybe the summer bank holiday?

 

Arbocop and Budgie, good posts.