2+2 does equal 4.

[corydoras]

In the sea.

 

Post ice-age, sea levels rose and there would have come a time when Loch Lomond and the sea were connected. The loch would have been a huge inlet, fjord like. The sea level subsequently dropped, leaving the loch cut off. In such a large body of water there would be loads of fish, including some that would survive the slow change from salt to fresh water.

 

But, and this is a big but, the same doesn't hold true of the higher tarns/corries. When they were first exposed as lakes the sea wasn't up there washing around 500m (or whatever) higher than today. They were left high and wet, so to speak. And barren. If fish managed to get in there at all they weren't left behind, they arrived somehow. The low corries could well have been populated by stranded sea fish, as per the landlocked lochs. Or some other way. Or both.

 

This is my theory Chris, which is mine. Ahem.

Don't forget that post ice age that as the sea level rises because of the melting ice, the earths crust tends to 'bob up' a bit more on top of the mantle because it does not have the weight of all the ice pressing it down any more.

 

BTW the Loch is still connected to the sea. At the bottom end of the Loch you could fish for roach, perch, trout and flounder all off the same spot.

[kleinboet]

I agree that the subject matter is interesting BUT all I read is "they are on their own", "something must be done" over and over again! DON'T WRITE ABOUT ACTION, DO IT!!!!

[Peter Waller]

Going back to the original postings, I see that there was a 'star' letter in the AT last week condemning the Norfolk Broads laughable 'anti pike' fraternity. Whether Bob is a fully paid up member or not I don't know, but it does seem that that august body of anglers is pulling his string!

[Steve Walker]

I used to catch them regularly on the Thames and Mole in the 60's. About one ruffe every 2nd trip I reckon. The other day I had my first ruffe in nearly 40 years from the local canal and was gobsmacked. Thought it was a baby zander or some weird hybrid for a minute.

 

Ruffe are odd buggers. I've known waters where they have become absolutely dominant amongst the small fish, and they've been caught one a chuck. Some ponds are like that, and some of the Birmingham canals; a colleague was surveying the impact of zander in those canals, and found that in some areas they were mostly eating ruffe; maybe that's the answer for Lomond.... In other waters they remain a rarity.

 

One of the other controversial ruffe populations is in Bassenthwaite Lake. I've helped process survey nets from there, and there was certainly no shortage of the nasty little monsters. Removing a spiky ruffe from a gill net after an eel has chewed it to mush and twisted it into the netting ain't my idea of fun.

 

I don't know why pikers feel the need to be defensive about this; personally I think the fish probably did get there in a livebait bucket. Perhaps whoever took them realised they were rubbish bait and chucked them in, perhaps they came out of the bucket with their spikes in someone's hand and entered the water in a flurry of swearing. I don't think anyone who livebaits but condemns illegal fish movements needs to take that as a personal attack. "Real pikers" might not transport ruffe for bait (or carp for that matter) but there are plenty of numpties with a sea rod, a bung and some snap tackle who would.

[Dunk Fairley]

OK then. So it's probable that Mitten Crabs and Red Signal crayfish were all introduced as bait then is it? Those, along with Cormorants, and Ruddy Ducks. There are also a lot of Ring Necked parakeets flying around Kent. Were we (anglers) responsible for those as well?

 

Where does it stop? A pond near me, is over run with golden orfe. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY FISHING ON THAT POND. However, I'm sure that they got there in a bait bucket (not).

 

Alien species turn up in lakes, rivers, on land and even in the air. Believe it or not, it's not always anglers that do it.

 

However, anglers who do get caught doing such things, deserve no mercy, or support. Neither do the people who dump their unwanted pets, or foodstuffs, into the environment.

 

THAT SHOULD BE ACROSS THE BOARD. But it seldom is. When little Johnny's goldfish gets too big, Little Johnny's parents, see that he releases it into the local lake. That is wrong, but never gets punished.

 

Nobody, as far as I know (I've checked as well) has ever been prosecuted, for releasing ornamental birds into the wild. That is wrong.

 

Has there ever been a prosecution for releasing Crayfish, or Mitten Crabs? I don't know of one.

 

Now, two anglers have been caught, red-handed, breaking a law on fish movement. They may well get their goolies nailed to an immovable object (if their protestations don't get them out of the mire). Good. I hope that others of a similar inclination, are discouraged from trying it.

 

Let's just hope that a few other idiots who think they are doing no wrong, by letting other alien species go free, take heed. In the mean time, I'm sure the majority of Pikers will be perfectly happy to sit there and take flack, because of the actions of others.

Edited June 1, 2006 by Dunk Fairley