My Record Wild brown trout from the TWEED

[Emma two]

I have a problem with this idea that pike anglers could introduce sufficient Ruffe to kick start a breeding population. Ruffe aren't that common, indeed they are almost non existent in large parts the SE of England. But even assuming they were/are common and easy to catch, and are then used and discarded as pike baits, why are they almost non existant in all the gravel pits down south?

 

Plenty of pike fishing going on, but no one I know has ever used Ruffe as bait.

 

My instinct is that they were probably always present but were not found in sample netting(?) or maybe the population increased naturally?

 

My other problem is with the findings (?) and results (?) of almost all the so called "experts" in the environmental world...........................it seems that in every case where I have certain knowledge and experience, it differs from theirs.

 

But then I am a cynical old git

 

Perhaps Budgie can comment on the Ruffe bait question................perhaps he knows a lot of pikers who have/do transport them to Scotland for bait?

 

Den

 

You may be right. However I tend to accept the explanation of the researchers as more plausable. It may be that there were ruffe present, although there are no reports of them, then enironmental variables caused the hiterto invisible population to expolde. Science shows us that ruffe are very capable in increasing their numbers in a relatively short space of time. Changing social conditions support the unautherised introduction theory, the M6 motorway and the A66 trunk road together with increased motor car ownership since the early 6os brought many more visitors to the lakes, this is a measurable fact. Some of those visitors were and are anglers. One does not have to travel too far south of here, Lancashire and cheshire will do, to find waters where ruffe abound. It makes sense that pikers would bring their own bait, it saves time catching it on the water and the then predominant species was perch with an everage size of 6 to 8 inches, perhaps they were not confident in the species or that size (I would happily fish then BTW). So to bring canal and slow river species would have been logical.

Why science so readily attacked like some form of piscatoral luddism? Without it we would still be throwing sharpened sticks at fish.

[Emma two]

It's no good back peddling now, you are too far down that road with Emma.

 

Perhaps if the Trout was dealt with by chucking in in the bushes would have served the environment better.

 

I am afraid pictures of dead fish caught by rod and line is not terribly helpful for the image of Angling nor the need to conserve good breeding stock.

 

That trout must have had good genes to pass on being that it survived so much in it's life, but the idea of yours that it preyed on salmon parr etc was a problem and the environment would be better off without it, is skewed thinking I am afraid.

 

 

You have become very boring now...come up with something interesting, convincing and viable. The Walt Disney view only serves to make you look silly.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Emma two

[poledark]

Dave, you said, "in the late 60's the medway at maidstone teemed with ruffe" ,no idea how many are left.

 

 

I have only ever caught Ruffe from the R Lea near Fishers Green,once, about 15 years ago. I was actually quite pleased to have got one

 

There could of course be hordes of them all over the place, but "One never hears any reports", so taking that as a starting point "One" could be justified in denying their existance at all

 

The fact that I rarely fished with a bait and hook small enough to catch them is totally irrelevant to the discussion or results deduced

 

 

Den

[Guest redfin2]

You have become very boring now...come up with something interesting, convincing and viable. The Walt Disney view only serves to make you look silly.

From what I have read on this thread Emma, Tema Man is making a good argument for the majority, albeit if not on here, I think your idea that Ruffe were introduced wholeslae by Pike anglers is a bit fanciful, and without much merit.

 

However opinion is opinion, and abuse is not acceptable I reckon.

[Sportsman]

It's no good back peddling now, you are too far down that road with Emma.

 

Perhaps if the Trout was dealt with by chucking in in the bushes would have served the environment better.

 

I am afraid pictures of dead fish caught by rod and line is not terribly helpful for the image of Angling nor the need to conserve good breeding stock.

 

That trout must have had good genes to pass on being that it survived so much in it's life, but the idea of yours that it preyed on salmon parr etc was a problem and the environment would be better off without it, is skewed thinking I am afraid.

 

back pedalling? Are you quite well?

Wilko made a point and I responded. I said nothing about chucking anything in a bush.

When will you learn that your version of angling, with compulsory catch and release does nothing for the image of angling in the eyes of a great many people. At least if the fish are eaten there is some justification for fishing for them.

At the age the trout had reached it has already passed on its genes many many times. It was almost certainly past its best for breeding and probably wouldn't have lived a great deal longer anyway.

The Tweed is not short of brown trout, in fact Scotland as a whole is not short of brown trout. It is however short of salmon so I am quite happy to see this particular fish removed for the reasons I stated. I don't think my thinking is skewed at all.

I do however find that the idea of you referring to another's thinking as skewed faintly ludicrous

[Emma two]

Common sense and you appear to be estranged, and I am coming round to the notion that you may not even be angler at all. If you do go fishin'...well why? you must suffer frightful psychological stresses. Do you enjoy anything? Imagine if you killed a fish (you have if you have fished to any extent, but may be in denial) Like the sportsman I go fishin because I like to, at some times of the year I go every day. i try to handle well the fish that are to be returned, I kill and eat some of what I catch. That may be unusual in la la land where you live, but here its not.

 

I conceded that Poldark 'may' be right, but for now, in the absence of anything other than a 'oh that doesnt sound right to me' from a person hundreds of miles away, and who so far as I know are wholly unfamiliar with the water(s) in question, I tend to believe what emphirical research from a team of qualifiied people on the spot report, I make this choice as a rational sane person, not some clearly angst ridden fantasist locked in perpetual infancy, unable to break out of the 'id' stage of personal development.

 

Define a 'real angler'?

Edited December 18, 2011 by Emma two

[lutra]

I have a problem with this idea that pike anglers could introduce sufficient Ruffe to kick start a breeding population. Ruffe aren't that common, indeed they are almost non existent in large parts the SE of England. But even assuming they were/are common and easy to catch, and are then used and discarded as pike baits, why are they almost non existant in all the gravel pits down south?

 

Plenty of pike fishing going on, but no one I know has ever used Ruffe as bait.

 

My instinct is that they were probably always present but were not found in sample netting(?) or maybe the population increased naturally?

 

My other problem is with the findings (?) and results (?) of almost all the so called "experts" in the environmental world...........................it seems that in every case where I have certain knowledge and experience, it differs from theirs.

 

But then I am a cynical old git

 

Perhaps Budgie can comment on the Ruffe bait question................perhaps he knows a lot of pikers who have/do transport them to Scotland for bait?

 

Den

 

There is evidence from other parts of the world that boats may play a big part in the spread of Ruffe. You might also note that a lot of the waters in the UK with ruffe also see a lot of boats coming and going from them.

 

IMO the spread of Ruffe in the UK has never been looked into properly, probably because it is more fashionable to have a swipe at things like live baiting.

[Guest Wilko 09]

............. I kill and eat some of what I catch. That may be unusual in la la land where you live, but here its not.

 

Emma,

This is your legal choice but, in fairness, it IS unusual in the Uk.

[Emma two]

There is evidence from other parts of the world that boats may play a big part in the spread of Ruffe. You might also note that a lot of the waters in the UK with ruffe also see a lot of boats coming and going from them.

 

IMO the spread of Ruffe in the UK has never been looked into properly, probably because it is more fashionable to have a swipe at things like live baiting.

 

 

Yes there is a sugestion that ruffe could have been transmitted in the bilge of larger boats, however one of the waters (Bassenthwaite)subject to the research I quoted doesnt have large boats upon it, it has a motor engine ban and the craft upon it are sailing dingies and relatively small, oar or electric powered vessels. So if the ruffe have been brought in from elswhere, rather than suddenly generating a population explosion, then the livebaiters bucket provides a much more plausable explanation.

 

I agree with you about the 'swipe' at livebaiting being influenced by fashion. We have been so negatively influenced by it, we are forbidden to use fresh water dead bait too. It has however made us think and be more adaptive in our lure fishing.

[lutra]

Emma,

This is your legal choice but, in fairness, it IS unusual in the Uk.

I would probably think that to if i came from your corner of the UK and i probably wouldn't wish to eat anything that came out of the water down there either.