Pond Fish - Do You Like Catching Them?

[corydoras]

I agree that sounds nuts, but on the other hand during the days of Empire British game fishermen transported Scottish trout all over the world, in a manner I would have believed impossible if I didn't know otherwise. People sometimes do bizarre things when they get obsessive about a hobby! When we were kids, my mates and I were responsible for illegally stocking a number of small ponds - maybe Scottish kids are just better at carrying buckets over miles of peat bogs?

That's true. Mountain streams in the Himalayas have Scottish Brown Trout in them. They were taken there by Scots Tea Planters.

 

I know one thing for certain though, you can't solve a mystery with a mystery.

[Andy Macfarlane]

Taking trout to Argentina is hardly the same thing as stocking several 1000 holes in 1000s of miles of moor. I agree, fish do tend to move around best in the boots of cars but it can't explain every population and they can't all be from the days of the Raj either. Like I say, some of these pockets don't even exist in some years so someone is keeping on top of things.

 

Cory, try doing a search on here for anti-coagulants. We discussed it just last week. I dismissed it as nonsense as quickly as you did. It would appear to be bollix to me too.

[Vagabond]

There are 1000s of tiny little tarns, puddles and pools all over Scotland, with no inlets or outlets, containing huge, plague-like populations of brown trout, which breed like rabbits in little more than brown acid

 

Don't ask me how they got in these little puddles ........ I cannot believe anyone would go the bother of moving fish into them when there's no guarantee these puddle would stay wet from one year to the next. It would also be a long walk over very dangerous terrain, with a fish that doesn't appreciate being carried in a bucket, even with an aerator.

Yes, difficult to believe, but it happened, according to Peter Maitland and Niall Campbell, authors of "Freshwater Fishes" (It's a well-respected work, crammed with references)

 

In Scotland, during the nineteenth century and the early years of the twentieth, nearly every body of water larger than one hectare was stocked with brown trout, often from private estate hatcheries, which proliferated during that period. Estate staff were sent out with buckets of young trout to the most isolated lochs - some at altitudes of 600-900 metres - lochs which fish were unlikely ever to reach by natural means

 

So there you have it, never mind the hassle, the dangerous terrain, and the possibility that the little trout might die on you en route. If so, you just had to start again. Because the laird snapped his fingers and said "stock trout", you either stocked trout or looked for a new job

[corydoras]

Because the laird snapped his fingers and said "stock trout", you either stocked trout or looked for a new job

That's as good an explanation as any other I have heard. It beats little boys with jam jars or duck legs.

[chesters1]

why have the boys ducks legs? they need sympathy not abuse

no saliva as far as i know on pig bones either but cutting yourself on one gets plenty of blood and for the size of cut painful

 

 

interesting but no mention if they have anti coagulants

http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/e-sermons/butcher.html

Edited March 6, 2011 by chesters1

[corydoras]

Taking trout to Argentina is hardly the same thing as stocking several 1000 holes in 1000s of miles of moor. I agree, fish do tend to move around best in the boots of cars but it can't explain every population and they can't all be from the days of the Raj either. Like I say, some of these pockets don't even exist in some years so someone is keeping on top of things.

 

Cory, try doing a search on here for anti-coagulants. We discussed it just last week. I dismissed it as nonsense as quickly as you did. It would appear to be bollix to me too.

Searched, found and just had to post. I don't know what idea is the daftest. Pike having anti-coagulants or pike and shark developing a taste for human blood. The feces that some people will believe "sans evidence" never fails to amuse me.

[gozzer]

Mebbe that's a minority of three.

 

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.

[corydoras]

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.

That about sums it up John.

[Dick Dastardly]

Right or wrong the spreading of Brown Trout around the world was an amazing feat! Just try keeping trout livebaits without a good oxygen pump!

 

As for the Pike "anti coagulant" thing I think in all fairness the term "saliva" has been taken a bit to literally here so making the whole thing look a lot more implausible than it is! Like I said it is actually taught on some fishery management/freshwater biology courses.

 

The same goes for the transferring of fish eggs by birds.

 

But as with a lot of things like this its very hard to find good factual evidence of any worthwhile scientific research,It seems to me that far to much credence is given to what appears in books/Internet by "unqualified" authors........as is it now seems far to easy for equally "unqualified" people to cast doubt on such things!

 

For example (and it is only example) How do we know that Peter Maitland and Niall Campbell had any proof of their claims and weren't merely repeating folk lore /local gossip? Who (or more accurately what!) is Corydoras to say that the anti coagulant thing is bollix? See what I mean? You would have thought that the lecturers I had on my degree or fishery management courses would be a pretty reliable source of "fact" but like Ive often said they tended to contradict each other and as an experienced "observer" of fish and their environment "knew" somethings they taught me were "wrong" (once again their knowledge simply being passed on from another source that was often flawed but never questioned).

 

Trouble is research costs both time and money. This to often means that unless there is some financial gain to be achieved that such research is simply never carried out.

 

I also struggle to believe that fish only get into waters as a result of man.Surely they wouldn't have established them selves so universally if this was the case? Andy's (cant remember the proper word! transient?) dry/wet ponds sticklebacks is a prime example.

 

During my early years of infatuation with Catfish I was rather frustrated by the lack (or apparent lack) of scientific information about them,their life cycle etc. Myself and Rob contacted the Natural History Museum (after getting fed up with listening to all the "facts" told to us by so called fishing "experts" that just a few seasons of fishing for them in this country and shown us were obviously rubbish) We paid for a "Study session", this involved submitting a request for the information we wanted and the reasons why plus a rather large (well large for two scummy danglers as us!) three figure fee/donation [cough,cough] .It turned out to be the best money I have ever forked out on anything to do with fishing! However to the point it showed me two things relevant to this thread-

 

One an awful lot of proper research has been carried out but just finding it (even if it is on the Internet/in libraries) is a task in itself as is once found understanding it!

 

Secondly is that many "facts" are simply not deemed worthy of the expense/time to ratify them but these are also often ones where practical experience has shown them to be true facts but the exact "mechanics" never really understood.

 

I suppose a bit like my thing about bream not wanting to feed on big moon nights,Ive no idea why but Ive seen it first hand so many many times I simply accept it.

[corydoras]

This to often means that unless there is some financial gain to be achieved that such research is simply never carried out.

That's just not true. I can think of many inventions with huge financial benefits that came serendipitously from low budget research programs.

 

Next time you are being lectured to by some boffin ask him how he knows what he knows. If he's genuine he will not be offended at being asked.