So why are big roach still so few and far between?

[Dick Dastardly]

A couple of comments on some points raised so far.

 

Dave I think the shape of the fish has more to do with it than size as Ive seen literally hundreds of stockie rainbow (between 1 1/4 and 1 1/2lb) being swallowed by cormorants.In fact fish so big that the bird cant fly until its either digested it or regurgitated it! That said the extra predation on the smaller species/sized fish obviously decreases the pressure on the food chain so allowing the bigger (no takable) fish to indeed grow bigger.However surely this would be across the board and the few roach that did grow over this threshold would then benefit as well? ie not a higher average maybe but certainly a higher than previous upper end size?

 

The genetic "limitation" angle sounds good though and it may be as simple as that.

 

I agree that the water temperature thing makes sense as well but even when the temperatures were lower or indeed in the case of the Tay that Brian gives there were never monsters (at this point I should say that by monster I mean in the sense of where a 7lb bream was regarded as a big fish in the 70's now a 24lb fish is the record and a 17lbr big! or a 10lb barbel was big but now a twenty is!) compared to today or in the Tay,just a better average size, (most likely the size they are meant to be?)

 

Today's big roach not true roach? No even though I agree there are many hybrids I think there are still plenty of roach "true enough" to be called roach.Of course the smallest trace of hybridisation back in a fish's genetic past can/will of course affect the actual "trueness"! but the argument of whether hybrids can successfully reproduce or not has never really been 100% answered.

 

The extra bait thing must to a degree have some effect on some waters, look at the Lynch Hill roach? Although though now they have had a few years of "fishing pressure" has this changed things there? I don't know.

 

I don't think they are that fussy an eater Rusty as several have been caught on baits intended for much bigger fish from boillies to deadbaits! but in general I can see what you are getting at.

 

Being that we aren't trotting for 6lb roach or catching super sized dace, minnows, ruffe, stone loach, sticklebacks, millers thumbs etc then so far Dave's extremely simple "genetic limitations" thing seems favourite at the moment.........unless anyone can offer anything else?

 

 

Slightly off track but with roach (in the majority of natural waters) their average size seems to be falling (look at the results of that Avon roach study thing) they feel this is due to spawning habitat problems.Has anyone noticed similar with the other species that haven't boomed either?

 

Also as for Pike and Perch I don't think there has been much change in sizes (not over a long term period anyway). Upper end for both species is still much the same as its always been just that there are now more of the bigger fish available that at other periods in recent time.The advent of trout reservoir piking explains this in pike and the recovery from Prymnesium/Perch Disease in perch.Or do you disagree?

[ayjay]

I remember reading some time ago now (and can't remember where) that Roach need certain foodstuffs at different stages of their development to achieve their full potential in size, if these foodstuffs are not available at the right time they will never get to the maximum size attainable.

 

 

Cormorants are more than capable of swallowing a 2lb Roach, I've seen one make a 3lb Pike disappear with no trouble at all.

 

Here's one from near me with a nice Mullet, (I can't claim credit for the pic, I borrowed it from Birdforum).

 

[Anderoo]

I think that change of habitat has a lot to do with it too, in a sense. It doesn't affect the ability of the species as a whole to grow bigger, but it does affect the individual fish. I remember reading in John Bailey's Gentle Giants book, that a lot of the big roach disappeared from Norfolk rivers because the mills and sluices were converted into houses, and the resulting change of water flow drastically affected the roach populations.

 

A similar thing has happened to the barbel population in the Oxfordshire Thames and its tributaries. Changes in flow (i.e. dramatically reduced from what it used to be) and massive extraction of gravel, especially from the weirpools, has meant that the river just isn't suitable for them as a species any more.

 

But none of that explains why roach as a species hasn't grown bigger...

 

Bream are fussy eaters and have grown to massive sizes. I don't think it's that.

 

I am interested in opinions on why the Willow (linch hill) roach are such a huge average size. It can't be bait, surely? Otherwise every carp lake in the country would regularly be producing 2lbers.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Anderoo

[lutra]

The genetic "limitation" angle sounds good though and it may be as simple as that.

 

I agree that the water temperature thing makes sense as well but even when the temperatures were lower or indeed in the case of the Tay that Brian gives there were never monsters (at this point I should say that by monster I mean in the sense of where a 7lb bream was regarded as a big fish in the 70's now a 24lb fish is the record and a 17lbr big! or a 10lb barbel was big but now a twenty is!) compared to today or in the Tay,just a better average size, (most likely the size they are meant to be?)

Ive never fished the Tay, but from what I've read up and down there was a good head of 2lb+ roach to be had and some tails of very big roach caught in salmon nets. I believe access for coarse fishing isn't to good up there either.

 

Another example I can think of is the Lake District with its deep cold lakes. Bream, carp and tench have found their way in there, but haven't done well, but roach do OK with 2lb+ fish not uncommon. True of some Scottish waters to i believe.

 

Maybe roach have already reach their "limitation" as they weren't bring suppressed by the cold like some other species were.

[Kappa]

Otherwise every carp lake in the country would regularly be producing 2lbers.

 

I'm not so sure they wouldn't if people were fishing for them!

 

The little hole in the ground round the corner from me regularly produces big roach (2lb+) but it doesn't have anything going for it except lots of bait.

 

Its very much like bream, very few of the really big ones get caught by carpers I doubt many will catch big roach and even if they do they will probably consider them a nuisance fish.

 

I think the real problem is the rivers, roach really seem to be struggling in rivers.

 

Rich

[Andy Macfarlane]

I have to agree with the sentiments of Wayne etc. when they say some of the larger species have grown to gargantuan proportions, due to the new feeds being offered up to them, by the angler.

We've seen barbel, carp etc. break records in recent years; records that had lasted for years at a time.

 

Roach on the other hand haven't really changed the dietary requirements and they haven't seen the benefits of these new feeds on the market. Roach, for the most part, still live on the same foods they always have (bugs, silkweed, shimps, larvae etc.) and so it's not surprising they haven't joined the lists of record breakers.

 

Perhaps if new feeds were developed with roach in mind, we might start to see roach records broken.

 

This is just conjecture on my part of course but why else would the larger species continue to grow on, while the lowly roach maintains the weights they always have. The same goes for the other smaller species like dace, rudd etc.

 

.....Andy....

[DavyR]

This is just conjecture on my part of course but why else would the larger species continue to grow on, while the lowly roach maintains the weights they always have. The same goes for the other smaller species like dace, rudd etc.

 

It's not because roach don't like to eat pellets and boilies, judging by the number that get caught on those baits on some of the commercials. I think it's probably because they're usually at the back of the queue on account of their smaller size and lack of aggression.

[Andy Macfarlane]

Interesting thought....

 

....but they can't be at the back of the queue every time an angler's super, high-nutrient feed goes in. Enough roach would still get through to these same feeds, through sheer numbers alone. Some roach at least, would have gorged on the very same feeds these monster carp and barbel are eating, so where are they??

 

Where are the massive roach??

[John Weddup]

I havent had any big roach for a long time round my neck of the woods. The Suffolk stour above Nayland use to be a good area and about twenty years ago i was lucky enoungh to have a run of quality fish on the float, and also when chubbing in the winter with flake. But the roach have all but gone now. The larger ones at least.

 

 

Hi Wayne

 

I disagree. I mostly fish above Nayland up to wixoe and still get big roach on ocasions throughout the winter.

 

This year I intend to fish a bit more below nayland so watch this space.

 

regards

 

john

[wayne baker]

Hi Wayne

 

I disagree. I mostly fish above Nayland up to wixoe and still get big roach on ocasions throughout the winter.

 

This year I intend to fish a bit more below nayland so watch this space.

 

regards

 

john

 

Hi John.

Im sure there are some decent roach in the stour, Its just i havent had any for a long time. Probably because i dont target them as much as i use to. Maybe once we have had a decent flush through i may revisit a few of my old hot spots and have a go.

 

I had one afternoon last winter under the bridge buy the pub in Nayland. Im sure you know the one i mean. It use to be a great winter spot. But i didnt catch one single red fin all afternoon. Just a few chublets and gudgeon.

 

All this talk of big roach the last few days has got me on a bit of a mission now.