PAC FURY OVER NUDD'S CALL FOR PIKE CULL

[luckyjim]

Quite possibly so,but more like "a lot of the bigger fish" rather than all.The Somerset levels are renowned for still being a strong hold of the "chuck em up the bank" brigade.

 

Once the balance on a large water has been destroyed it is nigh on impossible for man to intervene and correct it in a short period of time.

 

You would think that removing the excess numbers of small jacks and replacing the larger fish would be the answer...well it would if it was possible! In all of the many many situations where Ive been involved with the transfer of pike (admittedly mainly from trout reservoirs) they have never adapted to their new homes living only a few more sad years at best. Even if pike were made available from similar waters who would want to give up such fish?

 

Leaving nature to take its course and eventually regain the balance is often the only way.BUT this can take a long long time and in some cases never (in a human life span anyway).So the answer to me seems quite simple-

 

DONT INTERFERE WITH NATURES BALANCE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

 

Have been following this thread for a while now and seen this point made several times.

 

I may be missing something here (and of course I am not advocating but tentatively suggesting!) but surely leaving nature to take its course is not the only way, and certainly not the quickest way, to achieve an ecologically stable fishery after the larger pike have been killed and small jacks are running amok. In fact I think someone has tried to suggest this a couple of times before on this thread, using the example of a small river he was with several decades ago that he was given permission to remove jacks from (forgive me I forget who it was).

 

Surely the best way to prompt a return to this balance would be to kill a large proportion of the small jacks in a water. Then the remaining ones would have bountiful preyfish to grow large upon, less competition from their siblings, etc. Thus they would grow quicker and disrupt the preyfish population less, and once they were a decent size would go back to balancing the ecosystem: preying upon the jacks, limiting their number, etc. Hey presto you have the ideal situation back again. Budgie says in the text I've quoted that pike don't take to beig moved so well: fair enough, just return any large pike that are caught and let the remaining small jacks grow into larger pike.

 

Clearly this would require some regulation (i.e. only a proportion of them being killed), but would be the quickest and least destructive way of getting biomass levels back on track?

Edited October 22, 2006 by luckyjim

[gozzer]

Hi luckyjim, It was me that had the experience on the small river. It did work well for the 6yrs or so we did it, but it was on a small river, with a large pool on it, a mainly captive fishery. But as Leon said, it would have to be an ongoing operation, and on a large river it would be almost impossible to do. The native fish would be more nomadic, with fish moving from other lengths to replace the ones taken. To do what we did in a few years on this small river, would be a much longer task (if not an impossible one) on a river such as the Severn.

[Dick Dastardly]

Clearly this would require some regulation (i.e. only a proportion of them being killed), but would be the quickest and least destructive way of getting biomass levels back on track?

 

 

This is the whole problem Jim.As the larger fish have been removed the in balance has resulted in loads of small jacks which make up the required bio mass of pike.If you could remove 100lb of these small Jacks and replace them with 5x 20lbrs then fine. But if you dont (and my experience has shown me that sadly you cant) then the 100lb of jacks will simply be replaced by 100lb of even smaller ones long long before any of the remaining ones have reached "bigger pike" status and therefore you are just magnifying the problem. Put simply there will always be small pike before big ones.

 

Nature is the most experienced "manager" there is shes been at it a long time! nature will always try to keep a balance but it takes a long long time.

 

I do agree to a certain extent with what Gozzer says.Just by us fishing and killing/stocking fish and even the fact tht we are putting bait ie extra food into the water we are intefering with the balance. It is the extent that we are interfering though that is important.Nature can cope with it up to a certain level as so can we if we carry on "interfering" (to a certain extent) to maintain an "artificial balance".But it gets to a level where the damage is nigh on ireversable.

 

Like I keep saying my veiws arnt just based on my desire to see more/bigger pike but to see a balanced fishery which in turn (if suited) will produce big pike any way!

 

Once again the biggest damage to fisheries Ive seen by poor predator management has been to the silver/prey fish themselves.

 

It isnt just an opinion it is a well proven and researched scientific fact that any first year freshwater biology/fisheries management student will be able to tell you.Remove to many pike and you will end up with a glut of stunted prey fish and small jacks.But of course anglers know better..........

[luckyjim]

Hi luckyjim, It was me that had the experience on the small river. It did work well for the 6yrs or so we did it, but it was on a small river, with a large pool on it, a mainly captive fishery. But as Leon said, it would have to be an ongoing operation, and on a large river it would be almost impossible to do. The native fish would be more nomadic, with fish moving from other lengths to replace the ones taken. To do what we did in a few years on this small river, would be a much longer task (if not an impossible one) on a river such as the Severn.

 

That makes sense - so how about this?

 

If fishing on a large river it would be desirable to remove/kill any small jack that you catch, as it would take such effort to return the biomass levels to normal. If we take as an assumption that many large pike are accidentally killed by man/anglers anyway, surely this would be desirable full stop, even if people aren't/haven't deliberately killed off the better fish? Thus whilst the overall levels of pike would be lower than if there were no interference by man, at least the correct proportions could be maintained?

 

I realise, having read through it, that this seems a bit of an implausible suggestion, as there would be no way of knowing whether the correct proportion was being maintained without extensive surveys/monitoring. But as a last resort does it not make sense?

 

If so, it is not such a black and white issue as has been made out by some people: Nudd might even have been (probably unintentionally) correct in saying that a cull of small pike would be in the best interests of everyone, since the damage has already been done.

 

I guess all this just hammers home how important it is to be careful when pike fishing in general, in handling the fish, unhooking etc, especially with the biggies. I for one will certainly not be letting the float go under for more than a couple of seconds when I'm piking anymore - I'd rather miss 9 fish out of 10 then deal with the guilt of deep-hooking one of the few remaining decent fish left in the ecosystem.

[luckyjim]

This is the whole problem Jim.As the larger fish have been removed the in balance has resulted in loads of small jacks which make up the required bio mass of pike.If you could remove 100lb of these small Jacks and replace them with 5x 20lbrs then fine. But if you dont (and my experience has shown me that sadly you cant) then the 100lb of jacks will simply be replaced by 100lb of even smaller ones long long before any of the remaining ones have reached "bigger pike" status and therefore you are just magnifying the problem. Put simply there will always be small pike before big ones.

 

 

It all seems so futile...

 

 

Thanks for the clarification

[Dick Dastardly]

It is a very difficult situation Jim thats why there is no easy answer other than trying to avoid the problem in the first place.It can also happen naturally as well as by mans interference.

 

To keep a "balanced" fishery you need pike of all sizes as there are indeed "prey fish" of all sizes.Also "pike of all sizes" means that there is a natural replacement of the larger pike when they die.

[gozzer]

When I was a youngster, I used to fish a stretch of the Wharfe at Boston Spa. It was a mixed fishery, but the club used to stock with trout nearly every year. They had a bounty on pike, it was something like a shilling or two per fish. We got to know a pensioner that fished regularly for the pike, putting a minnow or such through the shallows in June used to get him 6-7 jacks each visit. He used to make his beer money that way. He knew it was a never ending thing, but if they wanted to waste their money then he'd take it. He knew it wouldn't make much difference to the pike stocks.

 

PS Beer was only about 1s-6d a pint in those days!

Edited October 23, 2006 by gozzer

[Grandma]

If so, it is not such a black and white issue as has been made out by some people: Nudd might even have been (probably unintentionally) correct in saying that a cull of small pike would be in the best interests of everyone, since the damage has already been done.

 

Nudd suggested a cull on three major river systems, he apparently based this on having pike attack whilst he's fishing in matches and came to the conclusion that there are too many pike. It's hardly scientific.

 

The concern is that other anglers will take his comments as 'expert' and decide to act upon them; along the considered lines you are thinking or otherwise. This could make a percieved problem into a real one.

 

Removing all the small pike you catch from a balanced fishery can result in year classes of pike stocks being affected and may cause a time bomb kind of problem. Before long, there aren't adequate numbers of medium sized pike to replace the large ones.

 

I'm not saying any of the river systems he refers to are balanced at the present time. For a start improvements in water quality and the recent mild winters have encouraged a huge explosion in silver fish populations. It's natural to expect predator numbers to increase in response. Given that adequate food is available, the balance may sort itself relatively quickly - i.e. quicker than in a fishery where pike stocks are culled.

Edited October 23, 2006 by Grandma

[A Worm OOE]

The post was not a knee jerk reaction? i have felt that for many a year,i mainly lure fish but also fish for roach dace etc. as a angler i wish to see a good balance in nature. while i suspect you as a match fisherman

wish to see your bank balance in a healthy state.one of us is a angler, the other nothing more than an business man trying to make profit!!

 

 

I have kept out of this debate as my feelings on the pike cull issue seem to follow that of the majority. However when I see this anti match angler trash again it makes my blood boil.

I am a match angler (although going into semi retirement) and have been for best part of 25 years. I have competed at a high level, I have won many matches and at one time held the record weight caught at a National Championship. In short I have been more succesfull than most match anglers. In those 25 years I have made a small profit from fishing once and that was the year I won the National. Every other year of my match carreer has cost me a lot of money and I wouldnt mind betting more than most on here spend on their fishing. I go match fishing because I like to fish and I like the extra challenge that match fishing gives me - end of story, money comes nowhere into the equation. Money comes nowhere into the equation for practicly all match fisherman, I would sugest that even Bob Nudd Dosnt make a profit from his actual match wins(, though of course his sponsorships etc provide hime with and income). For 99.999% of match anglers making a profit is not an option nor is it a consideration. The occaisional brown envelope is very welcome but usually contains little more than has been spent on fishing that week.

Sory to go off topic but I have heard that patronising holier- than- thou rubish too many times.

 

Matt

[Grandma]

Sory to go off topic but I have heard that patronising holier- than- thou rubish too many times.

 

Matt

 

I'm a pike angler at heart and I agree with your sentiment.

 

Slagging off other branches of the sport is counter productive. No branch is more worthy than the others and it is possible for them to be enjoyed on the same water rather than being mutually exclusive.

 

Pike anglers need the understanding of match anglers to ensure that pike stocks on shared waters aren't decimated.