What fish do a vanishing act in your area...

[AddictedToScopex]

No prob's Rik, will do m8 .

Cheers Ian. I am wanting to beat that 3lber I managed to whittle out last time I was there and winter is most likely the best time for the big ones as you have mentioned before.

[watatoad]

O.K. So I have my theory of where the fish go in winter and I doubt its very far.

 

Where do those of you who cant find fish in winter think they go?

Edited September 27, 2011 by watatoad

[Nicepix]

Well, the mullet have disappeared from my venue. A month ago I had roach and mullet in the same swim and today all I managed was a flounder and a dozen crabs. Even the roach were absent, but I think that is just temporary. On my local river the chub that are clearly visible all summer and are catchable on fly retire under trees and in deep holes in winter so you have to bait fish for them. Other than that its fishing as normal, although I tend to avoid those still, clear days of high pressure.

[Emma two]

I don't think that fish actually vanish, even though it may appear thet they have faded away. They are sure to have gone somewhere. I have theories of course, I imagine that a large percentage of the fish are occupying a small percentage of the water, like they are all stacked up somewhere that suits them, thermoclines an' all that. That presents a problem when the water is miles long and a couple of hundred feet deep. Rivers are miles long but comparitively very shallow, lowland stillwaters are often smaller in terms of length, surface area and depth, so the chance of finding fish is better. We use echo sounder fish finders, but they dont indicate species, so bait/ lure choice has to be guesswork. There may be a time and place on my local lake where it is possible to make it worth the effort of launching a boat and getting tackle out, but I'm not sure I have enough years left to find it.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Emma two

[Tigger]

I don't think that fish actually vanish, even though it may appear thet they have faded away. They are sure to have gone somewhere. I have theories of course, I imagine that a large percentage of the fish are occupying a small percentage of the water, like they are all stacked up somewhere that suits them, thermoclines an' all that. That presents a problem when the water is miles long and a couple of hundred feet deep. Rivers are miles long but comparitively very shallow, lowland stillwaters are often smaller in terms of length, surface area and depth, so the chance of finding fish is better. W

 

 

There's no doubt in my mind that they are shoaled up. I reckon in the rivers it must be in undercut bank's, roots etc. Thing is they don't need to eat for very long periods and so can sit out the winter months more or less in hibernation. Maybe the larger fish find this more difficult to do as a bigger body must require more gub. Maybe the larger chub become more catchable during the winter due to the fact that the shoal fish / fry that may be a large part of their diet are in hiding ?

[Ken L]

I reckon they go to the same place as the post that I put on this thread last night. Weired init ?

[AddictedToScopex]

I believe that they are simply holed up in areas which they feel safe in and which also allow them to hold station with the minimum of effort. As many have said as the cold sets in they move much less and do not have to actively seek out food very often and even when they do they only need to consume a small amount in order to maintain the energy needed to sit around out of the flow. They must go into a semi dormant state in order to achieve this.

 

The drop in temperature means the fishes metabolic rate will slow considerably as their bodies take on the heat of the water. As well as this their need for oxygen and respiration are greatly diminished too. It makes sense that they would therefore react to these conditions by moving to an area where their new physiological changes can be accomodated best such as slow eddies or deep pools or they may (as has been observed in carp many times) huddle together in order to attempt to maintain a more stable temperature and one at which they are happier. If this means moving downstream to a larger river to find a warmer environment then I have no doubt that that is what they will do provided the river enters the other where the saline content of the water makes it accessible.

 

I know that last winter when a lot of people had given up on the Ribble there were still places I knew I could go to get a bite as I know certain parts that act as holding spots in the cold weather. They all tend to be very slow moving deep patches of water. Bites are not all that hard to come by if you respond to frequency of bites with your feed. A single maggot on a size 18 with 3 or 4 as freebies can often outfish most baits for me in the winter.

[Anderoo]

I remember fishing a Surrey gravel pit one winter, and found the lake's carp tucked away deep into snags, in all the branches of trees in the water. It was a long cold spell and the carp had shut down completely - we were able to push them around with our landing net handles!

 

So you have 2 things - one is that fish group up and hold up in very specific, often very small areas, the other is that for long periods they either don't feed at all, or only very briefly.

 

I remember reading about a load of roach found one winter in a Thames lock cut - I think there were about 40,000 of them.

[gozzer]

I know that last winter when a lot of people had given up on the Ribble there were still places I knew I could go to get a bite as I know certain parts that act as holding spots in the cold weather. They all tend to be very slow moving deep patches of water. Bites are not all that hard to come by if you respond to frequency of bites with your feed. A single maggot on a size 18 with 3 or 4 as freebies can often outfish most baits for me in the winter.

 

I agree with what you've said ATS, but as I said in another post, "angling isn't set in stone". I too look out the slow/moderate flows, but find that depth isn't always as important, as I've been told. Often catching in 6' of water with much deeper areas around.

 

Two sessions come to mind when I think of the classic advice of 'fish deep slow water', (which I agree is often true).

 

One was on the Swale in a very bitter and icy December. I found the ideal classic swim, my mate decided that he would wade some faster water, (about 3ft deep), in the hope of some grayling. Despite having to leave the water every 10mins or so, (it was that cold), he caught a half dozen barbel. I blanked in my swim, and tried a steady 2ft deep glide, and caught a dozen or so decent chub. Both of us caught on trotted maggot.

 

The next was on the Wharfe, again December, with ice formed in the margins. It was a stretch I (thought) I knew well. I settled in a swim on a bend, with a barely moving current, and depths from 6ft to 12ft to choose from. I did my usual, and waited for the 'switch' to be turned on at dusk, nothing. As I was thinking about packing up, a couple of anglers came downstream and said that plenty had been caught up around the bend. I knew the deepest area up there was about 3ft, so I went to investigate. There were three anglers with keepnets in, and on asking, one said he was packing up, and lifted the net to reveal a mixed bag of roach, dace, and chub. The biggest roach was pushing 2lb! He had about 15lb of fish in his net, and the others had similar weights. All this from fast water, a couple of foot deep!

 

I sometimes wish that the fish were as clever as some make out. They could then read the rule book, and would know how to behave as we think they should.

 

John.

[AddictedToScopex]

I sometimes wish that the fish were as clever as some make out. They could then read the rule book, and would know how to behave as we think they should.

 

John.

lol It would make it far easier for those days when you fancy a really productive day. I do believe with respect to certain swims that you learn can be productive in different conditions that the fish develop a 'habit' of returning to the same place as they have previously as they must surely have the ability to learn and remember safe zones etc and areas that suit them better under different conditions. If not then it certainly must be hardwired as instinct from past generations meaning the likelyhood of them being in certain places over others is greatly increased. If you stumble across one of these areas and actually mange to remember it then there is a strong likelyhood that you will catch there on most occasions. Maybe if some sort of radio tagging was carried out we could gain a better understanding of habitual behaviour in our native coarse fish. However saying that I do believe that if we learn too much about our quarry they will then become far too predictable and take away an element of angling that many love which is the chase and the unpredictable (to a large extent) nature of the fish we target.

 

If we have all the answers then there becomes no point in learning.

Edited September 28, 2011 by AddictedToScopex