Pond Fish - Do You Like Catching Them?

[Tigger]

and if they were 'built for the purpose' and not established healthy fisheries to start with.

 

John.

 

 

I do know you've lost some of your old established waters this way from your posts in the past and I agree it is mighty annoying to say the least. The only worse way to lose one is when the barstewards fill it in, fish n'all !

[gozzer]

I do know you've lost some of your old established waters this way from your posts in the past and I agree it is mighty annoying to say the least. The only worse way to lose one is when the barstewards fill it in, fish n'all !

 

I've had that as well, in fact a mate lives right where one of my favourite swims used to be.

 

John.

[Dick Dastardly]

Lots to comment on here!

 

Andy please note my reference to Cory disagreeing being an EXAMPLE not a criticism of Cory or his points of view ....that's why I tried to labour the point it was an EXAMPLE! Cory is but one of several on here whose views on such subjects are worth listening to whether they correspond with mine or not! Neither of us know 100% so its good to be able to look at alternatives. Discussing it is certainly healthy especially when there are grey areas.

 

Cory even though I agree that many financially rewarding research discoveries have come about unintentionally I still feel that (maybe I didn't word it well?) that many other things are not researched simply because no immediate financial reward/return of expenditure is apparent? As for questioning the various lecturers I can assure you I allways have! I base a lot on practical experience and as such have allways felt justified in questioning anything (and I hope constructively) academic that conflicts with my own practical experiences. Some were interested and thought my personal experience relevant but others were offended and very short with me.However both types would tell me to learn what the curriculum said was so else I wouldn't pass! The former type lecturers were often the "better" in my and most other students opinion and would (if they couldn't give at the time) find references to the subject in hand and if not admit so! I to have not been able to find anything on the net or in my reference books re pike anti coagulant other than veiled references or blatantly anecdotal "evidence" but will still keep an open mind but if ever I refer to it will ensure I make clear its still not 100% fact.

 

Tigger is totally right about double standards however like I (and a couple of others have said) its more about the negative affect commercials can have on the future of natural waters rather than a desire to dictate to others what they must like!

 

On the "re stocking" question the Steve has summed it up for me.I agree with most of what he says but for me his comments "We should restock if the damage was done by us." and " "natural" in this sense just means that the stocking level is self-sustaining, not artificially raised" is the most poignant.

 

John as allways spot on but only in the ideal world I'm afraid! Simply because over stocking is a lot quicker than habitat improvement.

Edited March 6, 2011 by BUDGIE

[Dick Dastardly]

Sorry forgot another thing!

 

Chesters,I know exactly what you mean but we have to remember that false "facts" are often used to validate actions where the actual reasons might not be "strong" enough Once again as an example maybe the hospital staff just didn't think that annoying ring tones and equally annoying "loud" mobile phone users were simply not conducive to a calm restful atmosphere but the suggestion that they would interfere with vital medical equipment would be far better in convincing us not to use them? See what I mean? Once again just trying to make up an example.

 

Incidentally a lot of rules use this sort of tactic and I think we can all think of several "easy way out" rules in angling...............

[Tigger]

Budgie, the only problem with low density waters (as you will know) is it's not gonna get many rods on the bank so won't make you money. Most match anglers look for the high stocked waters so fisheries seem to be competing to get the buisness.

[Dick Dastardly]

Budgie, the only problem with low density waters (as you will know) is it's not gonna get many rods on the bank so won't make you money. Most match anglers look for the high stocked waters so fisheries seem to be competing to get the business.

 

Totally Ian its the way they make there money and that's why they are in the business! But there are still plenty of venues that are "natural" and can still supply great quality match fishing.Maybe not the massive weights of the carp stocked commercial waters and certainly often very poor weights in the winter/bad conditions.............................

 

Admittedly the "fairer" ie less draw dependant a match venue is the better BUT good match fishing (admittedly you need there to be fish caught!) doesn't have to mean big weights? A true match angler would get just as much of a buzz out of winning with 10lb of bits as winning with 300lb of carp. The diversity of conditions,available catches,venues,methods required was also a very big thing. The ability to be able to win consistantly on different venues at different times of year was also highly prized and the basis for all club level "Aggregate" matches and many big Open series.

 

In the early days of commercial match fishing it was the "fairness" of the draw that was the big thing that appealed rather than the big weights.................but now it seems that has long been forgotten and bigger weights equals better fishing.....

 

Incidently out of interest lets not forget that match fishing had its birth place in the industrial north and midlands where it became a popular way to make pretty pi$$ poor quality fishing a bit more exciting/enjoyable.

[Renrag39]

I usually visit a venue before I decide to fish it and to be honest, although there are a few in my immediate area that I wouldn't ever consider fishing, the majority seem to be stocked in a 'relatively' balanced fashion and in quite nice surroundings, with many being natural waters that have been expanded upon.

Maybe I am lucky or I have low standards but ultimately, I am thankful for the overstocked puddles (if somewhat concerned for the fish), if only to keep away the sort of person who delights in that type of sport and stop them from ruining the 'better' puddles and rivers, either by pressuring owners or otherwise illegally ruining truly (or at least considered so eg- the broads) natural ecosystems with ornamental fish.

 

Renrag

[lutra]

No "mebbe" about it Cory.

 

So what some are saying, is that because about 150yrs ago some jumped up selfish idiots, decided that they would like to fish for brown trout in the Himalayas, or remote parts of Scotland, we should feel and act the same. I would have thought that we were more aware of the dangers in this 'enlightened age', but obviously not. They also thought that it would be a good idea to bring back plants, (probably to remind them of 'the good old days') but we now know the dangers of those actions.

Maybe those that want to introduce their 'favourite' species to their local water, (or even every water nationwide), just because they have to travel to fish for them, are the descendants of those same 'jumped up, selfish idiots', and the need to threaten the local native species is genetic.

 

Just think about all the times the introduction of non native species have screwed up the local environment worldwide.

Or failing that, read the link.

 

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homea...ing/108294.aspx

 

I'm surprised that even those against this, can be so tolerant, or maybe I'm just at the end of my tether, after having so many waters that gave me years of enjoyment, ruined because of the commercially, and selfishly driven actions of a few.

 

John.

 

PS

Oh and on the subject of the anticoagulant I have another idea, but will post it on the appropriate thread eventually.

Not only do i think the coarse fish in my local river probably aren't truly native to it, but i would also doubt that the majority of native coarse fish in the majority of the UK are truly native to the waters they are in, such has mans hand been in moving them about. Not only are a lot of the waters we fish man made as Ian says, but the ones that aren't don't look or run much like they would if it wasn't for man. Is there anything about the UK still natural today? I can't see how anglers obsession with carp or other species is really going to make any difference in the long run.

 

Having said that i like my local waters the way they are and don't want to see them change, not by carp or the introduction of new species anyway.

[gozzer]

Not only do i think the coarse fish in my local river probably aren't truly native to it, but i would also doubt that the majority of native coarse fish in the majority of the UK are truly native to the waters they are in, such has mans hand been in moving them about. Not only are a lot of the waters we fish man made as Ian says, but the ones that aren't don't look or run much like they would if it wasn't for man. Is there anything about the UK still natural today? I can't see how anglers obsession with carp or other species is really going to make any difference in the long run.

 

Having said that i like my local waters the way they are and don't want to see them change, not by carp or the introduction of new species anyway.

 

Of cause everything that man does has an effect on the water and it's inhabitants. Whether it be flood prevention, type of industry, type of farming, building, whatever, it has an effect on the river, (and I'm talking rivers not still waters). Sometimes an event either natural or man made, causes a shift in either the appearance of the river, or the chemical balance of it. This in turn has an effect on the type of fish that finds it favourable, so you get a specific species or type of fish flourishing. The ones who find it less favourable either move to a 'better' area, or diminish in numbers. That is what I call a 'natural' development of a water.

What I am against is the stocking of numbers of fish just because anglers fancy fishing for them. Where as the former happens 'naturally' over a period of time, the latter is almost instant in it's effect on the water and has, I believe, a more drastic/negative effect on the 'balance' of the water.

As to the "obsession with carp or any other species" making a difference to the water. The introduction of alien species, especially in numbers, has to have an impact on the 'native stocks'. Initially by competing for food, but then for spawning sites, and in the case of carp, actually changing the nature of the river to suit themselves, and in doing so makes it less suitable for other species.

If one or two fish found their way into rivers it might not be as bad, but when you've got an area like East Yorks, with a patch work of small ponds filled with carp, catfish and other ornamentals, added to a network of small drains, all linked to the rivers. All of this on low lying land, susceptible to flooding, you are just asking for trouble. (I feel the EA have failed miserably in it's mission to protect our waterways by allowing this to happen). Then they've allowed the stocking of large numbers of carp into the canal system. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that they will make their way to the rivers.

 

As I've said many times on here (and elsewhere) this slowly erodes the choice that many of us have.

 

The whole scene has changed so much that instant catches are expected. If I pay for a day ticket, then I consider that the fee is to enter the place and fish. The catching part is down to me and how I fish it. Now the day ticket is seen by many as paying to catch, as if catching is part of the service provided. If they don't catch, the the water is rubbish, and I've even heard of refunds being demanded!

I liken it to those who play computer games, they have to have the latest one, and the kudos that goes with finishing it. They haven't yet got the skill or experience to complete the game, so they download a list of 'cheats' and short cuts. They can then go on to finish it, and hold their own with their peers. The overstocked waters are aimed at those with that mentality. The sad thing is that this then becomes the bench mark for other waters, and in order to compete the owners have to stock to a similar, or higher level. Which in turn increases the chances of escapees into the rivers, and the cycle continues.

 

Sorry for the rambling form of the post, but my mind is a bit preoccupied at the moment, and I can't be bothered restructuring.

 

John.

[Anderoo]

If the places being discussed were the only choice left - all stillwaters stocked at artificially high levels with garden pond fish, river fish and whatever else, and rivers either out of bounds because clubs don't bother to lease them any more, or ruined though escapees and/or disease - I would stop fishing for good and have no regrets about it. The mystery, exploration and challenge that I associate with fishing would have gone.

 

The sad thing for me is that people coming into fishing now think this is all normal. Worse is that plenty of people who have been around a bit don't see anything wrong with it either.

 

Ah well, I will hopefully see my life out on some deserted bit of river somewhere, hoping for my one bite a day from a boring old native fish Future generations probably won't feel like they missed out on anything. I can be the cranky old loner bream, down to a shoal of one, finding quieter and quieter water and hoping no-one finds me