Why don't we get more big trout in coarse waters?

[Emma two]

Thats a new one on me mate and very interesting at that. Any idea where I could get some more info on it?

 

here is a bit for now...Next time I see my retired fisheries inspector I shall ask if anything with our monitoring in it was published... in the meantime...

 

Most of the British and Irish lakes that appear to hold ferox trout tend to be fairly unproductive: lakes like Lochs Morar, Ness, Arkaig, Awe and Quoich in Scotland, Ullswater and Bassenthwaite in Cumbria, Loughs Eask and Melvin. in Ireland and Llyns Padarn and Peris set amidst the mountains of Snowdonia. In these waters a typical brown trout caught on rod and line will be less than a pound in weight and between three and five years of age. But very occasionally the angling press will announce the capture of a trout weighing up to ten pounds or more.

 

'In a study of Lough Melvin, biologists from the Queen's University, Belfast showed that the ferox trout is genetically different from the other forms of trout that inhabit that lake. They spawn with other ferox trout in separate streams from the other trout that live there. Furthermore, Andrew Ferguson and his co-workers showed that it is possible to identify, by genetic finger-printing, tiny ferox trout that may superficially resemble ordinary brown trout. On these grounds Ferguson argued, in the Went Memorial Lecture given to the Royal Dublin Society on 20 November 1985, that the ferox in Melvin were a full species in their own right that had evolved from a single colonisation of the lough follow'mg the last Ice Age.'

 

http://www.lochwinnochac.net/Trout/ferox.html

 

I am of the opinion, after seeimg what I have, that ferox are quite a different thing to other trout, I subscribe to the sererate species theory . Sorry Arbocop that this doesn't really answer your question.

 

Perhaps someone would like to define a 'coarse fishery'? and that is perhaps not as straihtforward as it sounds.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Emma two

[Phone]

Lutra,

 

I've done a little research and arrived at an "independent" conclusion. Real Anglers don't want large ferox trout dumped into the streams.

 

It looks like this is the MOST "likely" scenario to me. The fish life span is 5 years. During the 4th year it is at it's maximum "desireability". It is quite easy to segragrate this fish by spawn year. The "government" would have to open "catch" to every Tom, Dick, and Harry for catch and kill. River's where unnatural supplies of fish were added (quite cheaply I might add) would be TRASHED... Purists anglers would be up in arms. What the 'ell you thinking??

 

Phone

[Dick Dastardly]

Many thanks to John and Emma for that stuff.Ferrox haven't been part of my fishing for quite a few years now and sadly I doubt very much they ever will be again. However back in the late 80's and most of the 90's they very much were.Really fell in love with the whole thing. Fascinating fish,amazing environment and one of my favourite ways to fish.4-6 weeks were spent most years after them. Ironically Ive had several bigger "artificial" Browns both intentional and accidental than my PB Ferrox of 12lb 14 ozs but non of them (well maybe one but that's another tale!) ever came close to the sense of achievement that I got from the majority of Ferrox I caught.

 

(I might have the figures wrong) An old Scottish Ghillie once told me that if I got my act together then the best I could ever hope for was one Ferrox for every 100 miles rowed! He was rather offended when I asked if 100mile on an out board counted! and as I certainly put in far more than 100 miles per fish I obviously never got "my act together"!

[Emma two]

Many thanks to John and Emma for that stuff.Ferrox haven't been part of my fishing for quite a few years now and sadly I doubt very much they ever will be again. However back in the late 80's and most of the 90's they very much were.Really fell in love with the whole thing. Fascinating fish,amazing environment and one of my favourite ways to fish.4-6 weeks were spent most years after them. Ironically Ive had several bigger "artificial" Browns both intentional and accidental than my PB Ferrox of 12lb 14 ozs but non of them (well maybe one but that's another tale!) ever came close to the sense of achievement that I got from the majority of Ferrox I caught.

 

(I might have the figures wrong) An old Scottish Ghillie once told me that if I got my act together then the best I could ever hope for was one Ferrox for every 100 miles rowed! He was rather offended when I asked if 100mile on an out board counted! and as I certainly put in far more than 100 miles per fish I obviously never got "my act together"!

 

 

That sounds about rght, I once heard it said (of ferox) that while fishing for them is not especially difficult it is verylabour intensive.

[lutra]

Lutra,

 

I've done a little research and arrived at an "independent" conclusion. Real Anglers don't want large ferox trout dumped into the streams.

 

It looks like this is the MOST "likely" scenario to me. The fish life span is 5 years. During the 4th year it is at it's maximum "desireability". It is quite easy to segragrate this fish by spawn year. The "government" would have to open "catch" to every Tom, Dick, and Harry for catch and kill. River's where unnatural supplies of fish were added (quite cheaply I might add) would be TRASHED... Purists anglers would be up in arms. What the 'ell you thinking??

 

Phone

Phone,

 

Ive no idea where you did your research, but you didn't ask me. I spent a lot of my early angling years dreaming of catching a big trout out of my local stream. I did once catch a real cracker over 2lb, but i think it had escaped from a stocked lake up stream and wasn't a wee ferox.

[Dick Dastardly]

That sounds about rght, I once heard it said (of ferox) that while fishing for them is not especially difficult it is verylabour intensive.

 

 

Yes nothing technically that difficult as long as you can handle a boat and have mastered the art of trolling slow and deep.Location is a bit hit and miss and I suppose at the end of the day its back to the old numbers lark! ie you are fishing for so few fish in so so much water! Some people find it very boring but I used to love every minute of it!

[Dick Dastardly]

Thought I best add that all of my Ferrox experience has been on big Scottish Lochs and one Irish Lough. However I gave a slide show to a PAC group in Ashford,Middlesex (It might have been the Kingston on Thames lot?) Any way there was a guy there who had spent many years after (and catching) Ferrox from the Thames.Many 7-8lb fish but cant remember his biggest or over how long etc.But it did prove they were a viable target.He mainly lure fished or wobbled small deads (season dependant). They certainly looked as "Ferrox" as any I had caught!

[lutra]

Many thanks to John and Emma for that stuff.Ferrox haven't been part of my fishing for quite a few years now and sadly I doubt very much they ever will be again. However back in the late 80's and most of the 90's they very much were.Really fell in love with the whole thing. Fascinating fish,amazing environment and one of my favourite ways to fish.4-6 weeks were spent most years after them. Ironically Ive had several bigger "artificial" Browns both intentional and accidental than my PB Ferrox of 12lb 14 ozs but non of them (well maybe one but that's another tale!) ever came close to the sense of achievement that I got from the majority of Ferrox I caught.

 

(I might have the figures wrong) An old Scottish Ghillie once told me that if I got my act together then the best I could ever hope for was one Ferrox for every 100 miles rowed! He was rather offended when I asked if 100mile on an out board counted! and as I certainly put in far more than 100 miles per fish I obviously never got "my act together"!

Yes thanks for the input and the link people, all interesting stuff.

 

"100 miles"! That's easy Budgie, just a quick lap of the loch in mind should have that covered.

[Steve Walker]

'In a study of Lough Melvin, biologists from the Queen's University, Belfast showed that the ferox trout is genetically different from the other forms of trout that inhabit that lake. They spawn with other ferox trout in separate streams from the other trout that live there. Furthermore, Andrew Ferguson and his co-workers showed that it is possible to identify, by genetic finger-printing, tiny ferox trout that may superficially resemble ordinary brown trout. On these grounds Ferguson argued, in the Went Memorial Lecture given to the Royal Dublin Society on 20 November 1985, that the ferox in Melvin were a full species in their own right that had evolved from a single colonisation of the lough follow'mg the last Ice Age.'

 

http://www.lochwinnochac.net/Trout/ferox.html

 

That's very interesting - if they have developed genetic isolation, they have a foot on the path to speciation.

[lutra]

In my early attempts of down rigging after char i manage to drown a 1lb+ trout. It took a small (0 sized) mepps 60' down in the deepest part of Coniston (300' deep). At the time i guest it was a sea trout but when i got it back to camp and may good use of it, i was surprised to find it had white flesh.

 

 

What do you guys think, Brownie, Sea trout or a wee Ferox?