UK Fishing Forums
If you haven't posted today why not log in and let us know what you've been up to

or if you are new to the site

Sign up today and share with us your experiences

Where friendly and welcoming

Thanks for reading and

Welcome to UKFF

Chew Valley

Page 4 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by Stotty on Sun Dec 05, 2010 6:03 pm

chief wrote:im looking at 4x4's at the mo. still need to turn a reasonable fuel consumption though so im looking at the smaller end, almost got a freelander the other week and im also looking at the toyota rav4 the crv and the jeep cherokee.

got a rave 4 for sale at the moment was my late father in laws I have been using it the last few weeks

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110612983000&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT#ht_768wt_932

_________________
avatar
Stotty
Site Gaffer !
Site Gaffer !

Male
Number of posts : 12673
Age : 46
Location : Essex Boy!
Reputation : 348
Registration date : 2008-03-15
My Bait : get on the bait Zone

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by Woodchucker on Sun Dec 05, 2010 6:46 pm

Thats a nice bit of kit Stotty, just a tad out of my price range, do you take part exchanges lol!

_________________
Red Hot Chilli Piker
avatar
Woodchucker
Global Mod
Global Mod

Male
Number of posts : 8009
Age : 43
Location : Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Reputation : 141
Registration date : 2008-03-14
My Bait : Anything but savage gear shite!

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by Stotty on Mon Dec 06, 2010 6:53 am

Woodchucker wrote:Thats a nice bit of kit Stotty, just a tad out of my price range, do you take part exchanges lol!


I tell you what mate bloke went through all the stuff of has it this has it that best price then offered me a Volvo and 1500 quid and that's one of 3 now Suspect I think there girls cars i have been using it for the last few weeks and think its ok but if you want an estate car but its no 4x4

_________________
avatar
Stotty
Site Gaffer !
Site Gaffer !

Male
Number of posts : 12673
Age : 46
Location : Essex Boy!
Reputation : 348
Registration date : 2008-03-15
My Bait : get on the bait Zone

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by Woodchucker on Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:09 am

Hence buying it for the wife to be lol!

_________________
Red Hot Chilli Piker
avatar
Woodchucker
Global Mod
Global Mod

Male
Number of posts : 8009
Age : 43
Location : Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Reputation : 141
Registration date : 2008-03-14
My Bait : Anything but savage gear shite!

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by noodle on Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:24 am

Woodchucker wrote:Hence buying it for the wife to be lol!

i thought a soft roader would be a good idea too No

mind you it is cheaper for her to insure than a fiesta and only 30 quid a year more to insure than a 1.0L micra scratch

but it eats petrol whoever mentioned the 4.2 jeep well i looked at those for dawn

she pays 892 quid on her 2 litre sportage

the jeep was £7992 plus a few pence to insure for her

woody toyota nissan or honda all day long the xtrail would be best for you and i reckon the hrv for the other half to be
avatar
noodle
Top Member
Top Member

Male
Number of posts : 433
Age : 42
Location : st helens apparently we have a rugby team???
Reputation : 12
Registration date : 2008-03-24
My Bait : bit of painted wood

View user profile http://pacregion31.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by Woodchucker on Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:12 am

It cant be too big John, because she struggles to park her Clio No

_________________
Red Hot Chilli Piker
avatar
Woodchucker
Global Mod
Global Mod

Male
Number of posts : 8009
Age : 43
Location : Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Reputation : 141
Registration date : 2008-03-14
My Bait : Anything but savage gear shite!

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by Stotty on Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:37 am

Woodchucker wrote:It cant be too big John, because she struggles to park her Clio No


not a problem with a 4x4 mate Cool Smoking


_________________
avatar
Stotty
Site Gaffer !
Site Gaffer !

Male
Number of posts : 12673
Age : 46
Location : Essex Boy!
Reputation : 348
Registration date : 2008-03-15
My Bait : get on the bait Zone

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by Woodchucker on Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:45 am

her insurance is bad enough without pushing people out of the way taz

_________________
Red Hot Chilli Piker
avatar
Woodchucker
Global Mod
Global Mod

Male
Number of posts : 8009
Age : 43
Location : Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Reputation : 141
Registration date : 2008-03-14
My Bait : Anything but savage gear shite!

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by chief on Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:09 am

Stotty wrote:
chief wrote:im looking at 4x4's at the mo. still need to turn a reasonable fuel consumption though so im looking at the smaller end, almost got a freelander the other week and im also looking at the toyota rav4 the crv and the jeep cherokee.

got a rave 4 for sale at the moment was my late father in laws I have been using it the last few weeks

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110612983000&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT#ht_768wt_932

if that had been a diesel i would have had it off you in a flash mate, its just what im after
avatar
chief
Die Hard UKFF Angler !
Die Hard UKFF Angler !

Male
Number of posts : 2250
Age : 40
Location : in a pineapple under the sea
Reputation : 65
Registration date : 2009-10-17
My Bait : Squirrley Burt - its Squirrley!

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Removing pike from Chew Reservoir is the only answer

Post by Stotty on Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:21 pm

well lads have you seen this in A.T

They intend to reduce the number of pike currently munching their way through the trout stocks,

Bob Handford, fisheries and recreation manager at Chew Reservoir..........

He has, in some people’s eyes, put himself in pole position for this year’s award for the sport’s biggest villain. All bets are off - Bob’s now a shoo-in.

The verbal bullets are, of course, being fired from within the predator community - mainly those lurking in the shadow of anonymity that internet forums provide.

These keyboard cowards believe that any removal of pike is a crime punishable by painful death, arguing that Chew is going to get harder. How dare a venue that is primarily a trout fishery make moves to safeguard the fishing for its biggest customer base? Pike anglers selfish? Never...

Look, these are the facts. Chew Reservoir is run as a game venue and in the past few years it has seen its trout returns plummet, undoubtedly a direct result of the explosion of pike. Last year 56,000 trout were stocked and only 17,000 caught.

Compare that to a few years ago when 40,000 were introduced and 25,000 taken, and you can see there’s a problem. The pike numbers are simply out of control.

Bob, I reckon, had no choice - and when this minority of moaners get their heads out of their backsides for a moment, they will see that too. If the predators are allowed to run riot, they’ll be fewer trout. And if there are fewer trout, they’ll be fewer game anglers willing to pay to fish for them.

Before long, Chew won’t be financially viable and there’ll be nothing left for anyone to fish for - including pike. Remove the jacks, let the trout flourish and, as a by-product, you increase the chances of the big predators getting bigger. Crikey, it’s hardly rocket science, is it?

The plan, as far as I’m aware, is to initially use humane nets to remove only pike up to 10lb, all of which have been found new homes already. None of the twenties are going and certainly none of the really big girls either.

So the argument that says the sport is going to be adversely affected carries about as much water as thimble.

Admittedly, the dreaded ‘gill net’ words have been used but, at the moment, they are only being used in sentences also containing ‘last resort’.

Chew will, in time, probably suffer the same fate as other trout waters that have opened up to piking, with fewer biggies caught year on year. But that won’t be down this latest attempt at control. These places have a finite lifespan - just look at Llandegfedd and Blithfield.

Ultimately, pike anglers need to be realistic. One, they need to accept that trout reservoirs, as the name suggests, are there for game anglers. And two, pike don’t like pressure, so those bonanzas that accompany any initial opening won’t be replicated as the number of captures increases.

Whichever way it’s analysed, Chew is still one hell of a predator water. So instead of condemning the man who controls it, use a bit of commonsense.

Applaud the transparency and respect his decision. It might yet ensure the best open access pike venue in England remains that way.

_________________
avatar
Stotty
Site Gaffer !
Site Gaffer !

Male
Number of posts : 12673
Age : 46
Location : Essex Boy!
Reputation : 348
Registration date : 2008-03-15
My Bait : get on the bait Zone

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by nixon on Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:47 pm

Pike anglers...keyboard warriors...never lol!

_________________
avatar
nixon
UKFF Moderator
UKFF Moderator

Male
Number of posts : 4976
Age : 38
Location : Essex
Reputation : 121
Registration date : 2008-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by Stotty on Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:50 pm

no honest lol!

_________________
avatar
Stotty
Site Gaffer !
Site Gaffer !

Male
Number of posts : 12673
Age : 46
Location : Essex Boy!
Reputation : 348
Registration date : 2008-03-15
My Bait : get on the bait Zone

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by NIDGE MAC on Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:55 pm

Oh well, what can i say,
I think its one of woodys waters this one, and i,m sure he will have a comment or two Cool Smoking
avatar
NIDGE MAC
UKFF Moderator
UKFF Moderator

Male
Number of posts : 7362
Age : 53
Location : YORKSHIRE!!!!!! THA NOS...
Reputation : 175
Registration date : 2008-03-15
My Bait : GETTING OUT IF AND WHEN POSSIBLE...

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by nixon on Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:01 pm

The bloke is right tho, its a Game water,stocked with trout for the use of trout anglers,they simply realised that there was money to be made by allowing pike anglers to fish there.
In the long run this idea will be of benefit to the pike anglers,its just a bitter pill to swallow at first.

_________________
avatar
nixon
UKFF Moderator
UKFF Moderator

Male
Number of posts : 4976
Age : 38
Location : Essex
Reputation : 121
Registration date : 2008-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by noodle on Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:06 pm

nixon wrote:The bloke is right tho, its a Game water,stocked with trout for the use of trout anglers,they simply realised that there was money to be made by allowing pike anglers to fish there.
In the long run this idea will be of benefit to the pike anglers,its just a bitter pill to swallow at first.

the thing is that whenit comes to controlling pike on trout waters

you cant beat pikers how many end up dead on these waters?

avatar
noodle
Top Member
Top Member

Male
Number of posts : 433
Age : 42
Location : st helens apparently we have a rugby team???
Reputation : 12
Registration date : 2008-03-24
My Bait : bit of painted wood

View user profile http://pacregion31.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by chief on Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:49 pm

i think this signals the begining of the end for pike fishing on chew, removing the jacks simply does not work, within a few years there will be an exposion of jack pike on the water as happens every time this method is used. the managment will then have to look at it again and no doubt will deciede to end the pike fishing until stocks are managed as they have done on Llandegfedd. im sure woody will be along soon to comment on this but its something we have discussed before although not concerning this venue
avatar
chief
Die Hard UKFF Angler !
Die Hard UKFF Angler !

Male
Number of posts : 2250
Age : 40
Location : in a pineapple under the sea
Reputation : 65
Registration date : 2009-10-17
My Bait : Squirrley Burt - its Squirrley!

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by tattygun on Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:00 pm

chief wrote:i think this signals the begining of the end for pike fishing on chew, removing the jacks simply does not work, within a few years there will be an exposion of jack pike on the water as happens every time this method is used. the managment will then have to look at it again and no doubt will deciede to end the pike fishing until stocks are managed as they have done on Llandegfedd. im sure woody will be along soon to comment on this but its something we have discussed before although not concerning this venue

i've heard indiscriminately removing pike of all sizes will result in an explosion of jacks but never have i heard that removing only jack pike will result in a increase of jacks scratch

a lot of top pikers been calling for a cull on jacks on menteith including fudgey saying that the bigger pike are suffering due to the amount of jacks

chew will make some cash off the pikers sure but that pales into insignificance next to the revenue from trout fishing, if they don't please the trout anglers then the pike fishing is really stuffed (no trout angler, no trout stocking, no fat pike)
avatar
tattygun
A Top UKFF Member !
A Top UKFF Member !

Male
Number of posts : 1381
Age : 36
Location : dewsbury
Reputation : 48
Registration date : 2010-06-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by noodle on Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:23 pm

tattygun wrote:
chief wrote:i think this signals the begining of the end for pike fishing on chew, removing the jacks simply does not work, within a few years there will be an exposion of jack pike on the water as happens every time this method is used. the managment will then have to look at it again and no doubt will deciede to end the pike fishing until stocks are managed as they have done on Llandegfedd. im sure woody will be along soon to comment on this but its something we have discussed before although not concerning this venue

i've heard indiscriminately removing pike of all sizes will result in an explosion of jacks but never have i heard that removing only jack pike will result in a increase of jacks scratch

a lot of top pikers been calling for a cull on jacks on menteith including fudgey saying that the bigger pike are suffering due to the amount of jacks

chew will make some cash off the pikers sure but that pales into insignificance next to the revenue from trout fishing, if they don't please the trout anglers then the pike fishing is really stuffed (no trout angler, no trout stocking, no fat pike)


and he is basing that on what part of training or knowledge built over how long?
best theing to do for the pike on these places if ou want big ones is leave em alone and fish few and far between.

if you want to get big pike and i mean big you need to have a slightly different set of requirements
namely poor recruitment and the best method is through loss of year classes

on the broads salt and pyrmnesium (spp ive a had a wine or three lol) deggy was water take off, blithfield was netting and badgers lol!

a few others will spring to mind when im sober
avatar
noodle
Top Member
Top Member

Male
Number of posts : 433
Age : 42
Location : st helens apparently we have a rugby team???
Reputation : 12
Registration date : 2008-03-24
My Bait : bit of painted wood

View user profile http://pacregion31.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by tattygun on Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:04 am

Yes I remember the arguments against fudgy and the many others who supported a cull on menteith, ie he is mo scientist but then neither am I or you or woody or Nev fickling!

BUT there is an overriding factor with these big trout water pike and that's trout stocking, like you say there are other factors involved but non as important as there food source.

The trout club isn't happy but I've yet to see anyone who disagrees with the cull offer a credible solution to appease the trout club
avatar
tattygun
A Top UKFF Member !
A Top UKFF Member !

Male
Number of posts : 1381
Age : 36
Location : dewsbury
Reputation : 48
Registration date : 2010-06-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by Woodchucker on Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:42 am

This is a hard one, I have seen the arguments on both sides and fished it three times. Like most have already said this is a trout water that produces the largest Pike in the country but the water is a trout water and is run as such but blaming jacks for the poor results is simply jumping on the bandwagon, the one thing that has not been talked about is that the venue has very shallow water that fluctuates during the year which can control the Pike by drying out spawning areas and the biggy for me is the amount of black death that is flying around the area, me and Scotty counted 27 in the air at one time and on shallow water you can only imagine how many 1-2lb trout are being taken 365 days of the year, cull the black death and see the trout results pick up Wink

_________________
Red Hot Chilli Piker
avatar
Woodchucker
Global Mod
Global Mod

Male
Number of posts : 8009
Age : 43
Location : Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Reputation : 141
Registration date : 2008-03-14
My Bait : Anything but savage gear shite!

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by NIDGE MAC on Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:46 am

Wink



A REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR PIKE CULLS - prepared by -
Dr Nigel P Mcloughlin-snr
Dr Bruno Broughton
B.Sc. (Hons), Ph.D., F.I.F.M.
Fisheries Management Consultant
PAC Scientific Adviser

Latest Update: 12 November 2001


Preface
This article is the latest version of what started as a briefing paper back in the early 1980s. Updated several times, it is intended to provide a factual, dispassionate summary of aspects of the biology of pike and ­ in particular ­ what happens when they are culled.

Its main use is as heavyweight ammunition to use against individuals and organisations who believe that the only good pike is a dead one. PAC committees, to good effect, continue to employ the paper for just this purpose.

Feel free to use some or all of the information if you get entangled with pike haters or ill-informed fishery managers. Any additional data or ideas for future expansion would be greatly welcomed.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1.0: General Comments On Management Principles
There are a wide variety of physical, chemical and biological factors which influence fish populations in exploited fisheries. Where both predators and prey are present, factors which increase fish numbers include:-

:: immigration
:: natural recruitment (successful spawning)
:: stocking, be it planned, accidental or illegal.
:: Factors which decrease fish numbers include:-

:: emigration
:: pollution
:: disease and parasitism
:: 'natural' mortalities
:: predation - by the same species, other fish or other animals
:: removals, either deliberate (cropping/culling) or theft
:: angling, through deliberate or accidental actions.

In assessing the reason(s) for changes in the status or composition of fish populations it is important that each of these factors is considered. All too often, those charged with managing fisheries draw cause-and-effect conclusions based on prejudice, hearsay or inadequate data. Historically, the persecution of pike in British fisheries was a case in point, based on the fallacious notion that if left to their own devices, the pike would eat all of the other species to extinction.

With improved knowledge and its wider dissemination to anglers, attitudes have changed rapidly in the last few decades. It is fair to state that the far greater protection afforded to pike has not been accompanied by a decline in the quality of fishing for non-pike species.

Were this not the case, there would undoubtedly be a substantial groundswell of angling opinion in favour of rescinding pike conservation measures and resuming widespread pike culls... which there is not. Scientists and anglers in many other countries, notably in some other western European nations and in North America, share this more enlightened attitude to pike.

2.0: Specific & Relevant Scientific Information
The data from numerous sources demonstrate that on stable fisheries there is a weight-to-weight relationship between predatory fish and the prey which are available to them. This finding is in direct agreement with the original assertion of Johnson (1949) and the detailed pond experiments conducted by Swingle (1950). The latter author found that in ponds which maintained a balanced predator/prey relationship over prolonged periods, this ratio usually lies between 1:1.4 and 1:10.

In his review of a large quantity of data derived from eastern European predator fisheries, Popova (1967) cites pike biomasses of 10-13 per cent of that of their available prey; Kell (1985) lists survey data for the Sixteen Foot drain which give a relationship of 12 per cent; and Templeton (1995) recommends that pike fisheries should be stocked with prey fish at a weight of eight times that of the pike. When Broughton (unpublished data) analysed the catch statistics from several hundred scientific surveys of still and running water fisheries in the Midlands, an average weight ratio between pike and their available prey was found to be approximately 1:10.

Using the ratio of 1:10, one can predict that 300lb of prey fish would be able to support some 30lb of pike without any long-term, adverse effects on the abundance of either type of fish. A useful analogy is to imagine that the prey fish represent a sum of money which is invested. In effect, pike are consuming the interest, leaving the capital sum untouched.

This balance is a so-called dynamic equilibrium - in other words, it will swing one way or another in response to entirely natural phenomena (such as spawning success or outbreaks of disease). Equally, if the balance swings markedly in favour of one 'side', ecological pressures ensure that eventually it will swing back in the other direction (described in detail by Carlander 1958 and Anderson & Weithman 1978).

If this were not the case, there would be countless examples of fisheries in which pike have become dominant or have totally eradicated the stocks of prey fish, and this would be a continuing situation on unmanaged waters. I have reviewed a huge volume of the published scientific literature on pike in the British Isles, Europe, North America and elsewhere, and there appears to be just one example where pike had 'eaten themselves out of house and home' (Munro1957).

Ricker (1952) described three types of numerical relationships between predatory fish and their prey. Mann (1982), Kell (1985) and other authors have concluded that pike probably fall into Ricker's Type B model, in which: "Predators at any given abundance take a fixed fraction of prey species present, as though there were captures at random encounters". This means that predation is dependant on the numbers of prey, rather than the numbers of predators.

The dietary requirements of pike are also predictable and have been studied by several authors (e.g. Kipling & Frost 1970). In general terms, a diet comprising between 13oz-1lb of prey fish per pound of pike per annum is needed to merely keep the pike alive (the 'maintenance ration'): Johnson (1966) lists an average figure equivalent to 1.4lb/lb/year, with a range of 1.3-1.8, whereas Mann (1982) reports an annual value of 0.8/g/g.

(Note, however, that there is a positive correlation between food consumed and increasing temperature, and higher values have been recorded for pike kept under unnaturally-warm experimental conditions.)

Where pike are undergoing normal growth, 2-3.5lb of prey fish per pound of pike per annum is a common ration. For example, in his study of the Middle Level drainage system, Kell (1985) calculated that the annual consumption of prey fish by pike was 254 per cent of their body weight; and Popova (1978) cites studies which revealed figures of 341-344 per cent in the Volga delta and 270-340 per cent in Rybinsk Reservoir.

Conversion from prey flesh to pike flesh can also be predicted and the ratio between weight gain and total food consumed during normal growth is often between 1:5 and 1:10. Popova (1978) lists a figure of 1:8.8 and Mann (1982) calculated a ratio of 1:6.6.

The selection of prey by pike has been the subject of numerous studies. Some authors have noted that as pike grow larger, they eat larger prey (e.g. Diana 1979), although small prey are still consumed; other authors (e.g. Willemsen 1967) have concluded that it is the relative abundance of prey species which determines the diet of pike. Popova (1967) concluded that prey choice appeared to be governed solely by its availability to pike.

If offered a choice of prey species, there is some evidence that pike may select soft-rayed species in preference to fish bearing spines (Mauck & Coble 1971). However, other authors report that spined fish - usually perch or related species - are the dominant prey of pike (see Johnson 1966, Diana 1979). Flickinger & Clarke (1978) reported heavy predation by newly introduced pike on bluegills (a spined species), whereas there was no change in the numbers of carp and black crappies (soft-rayed and spined species respectively). In Llandegfedd Reservoir, South Wales, analyses of the stomach contents of large pike revealed substantial numbers of perch and relatively few trout (Welsh Water Authority, unpublished data).

That pike tend to be opportunist, rather than selective piscivores is supported by the fact that the stomach contents listed by Frost (1954) and Mann (1982) comprised nearly the entire range of fish species at both studied sites, Lake Windermere and the River Frome. Seasonal changes in the diet of pike do take place in response to the availability of prey (described by Lawler 1965 and many other authors). However, the scientific literature does not support the notion that pike will always 'prefer' a particular prey species - irrespective of its abundance - an allegation often levelled at pike in salmonid fisheries.

Kell (1985) concluded that recruitment to the pike population is largely determined by survival of the younger stages in the life cycle, rather than the number of parents or the quantity of spawn which is shed, with predation and starvation being the prime causes of larval mortality. Clepper (1975) also failed to identify any correlation between the size of the spawning stock and subsequent year-class strength for a variety of predatory fish, including pike.

The extent of intraspecific (pike on pike) predation has been noted by many authors (e.g. Toner & Lawler 1969, Pitcher 1980), and this has particularly important consequences for the survival of pike during their juvenile stages. Bry & Gillet (1980) report figures of 79 per cent losses of young pike through cannibalism; and Wright & Giles (1987) discovered that pike fry contributed 27.3 per cent of the number of fish in the diet of small pike kept in experimental ponds.

3.0: Can Culls Be Justified Scientifically?
The consequences of pike culling exercises have been reported by several authors, including Otto (1979), Bouquet (1979) and Kipling (1983), and they are widely recognised by fishery managers. After an initial decline in the number and overall biomass of pike, there is often a rapid recovery in the size of the population as a result of successful spawning and improved rates of survival of small pike. Where culls occur every few years, the net result may well be that the pike biomass recovers to its pre-culling status, although this often consists of more but smaller pike (e.g. Kipling & Frost 1970).

Kell (1985) reported the impact of pike and zander culling on the Middle Level drainage system in East Anglia, where the pike standing crop of 5.0kg/ha at the end of culling (1981) more than quadrupled, to 21.6kg/ha - its approximate pre-cull status - by 1983... just two years after culling ceased.

Selective culling of the smaller fish appears to be more successful. If large pike are retained in situ, they are able to prey on and control the numbers of their smaller brethren (Popova 1978). Other authors have reported the density-dependent regulation of pike populations through cannibalism. For example, Grimm (1981) confirmed that the biomass of small pike, especially 0+ fish, depended on (and was inversely related to) the abundance of larger individuals present in shallow Dutch fisheries.

On smaller bodies of water where culling is efficient, intense and continuous, it is logical to conclude that pike numbers can be controlled, and the numbers of prey fish may increase - sometimes with adverse consequences on their rates of growth and health. On larger bodies of water, this becomes increasingly difficult and expensive. Many British water-supply reservoirs are stocked with rainbow trout, and those where pike are present have been subject to a variety of culling methods spanning several decades.

Again, improved trout survival rates can be achieved where culling is intense and continuous, but the manpower costs associated with culling can be substantial (Broughton & Fisher 1981). The cost of pike culling measures at Llandegfedd Reservoir were also cited as a major constraint (Welsh Water Authority, unpublished report), and scientists there concluded that it was not feasible to eradicate pike.

Because pike removals are effective only where they are carried out intensively, at considerable cost, trout fishery managers have been forced to rationalise culling activities. Nowadays, it is acknowledged that at least 30 and, perhaps, 70 per cent or more of the pike biomass must be removed annually to prevent the rapid recovery of the pike population to its pre-culling size (NRA, pers. comm.). Latta (1972) estimated that at least 25 per cent of the individual pike had to spawn (and, therefore, had to be present) in order that the pike population be maintained.

In addition to the costs of such exercises, other drawbacks have become evident. These include an increased incidence of 'poorly-conditioned' trout and a reduction in their rates of growth - noted in Grafham Water by Broughton & Fisher (1981).

The effects on the fish population of the removal of large pike are widely acknowledged by fisheries scientists. In reporting the findings of a highly-controversial cull of pike in the Fenland drains, Kell (1985) concluded that: "A lack of older fish (pike) will lead to increased survival of the younger ones and a recovery of the predator stocks". Mann (1982) argued that the practice of removing large pike, which are heavily cannibalistic on fish of less than two years old, would actually increase losses of young salmon since it is the small pike which are primarily responsible for such predation.

Where culling is not efficient, intense or continuous, the pike population can rapidly re-gain its former biomass at the expense of the average size of the fish (reported by many authors, including Mann 1982 and Kipling 1983). When summarising the findings of some 20 years investigative research on gravel pit fisheries, Giles (1992) pointed out that: "Practical experience on many waters has shown... that when most large pike are removed from a lake there is an 'explosion' of young pike surviving subsequently."

Moore (1982) questioned the scientific rationale for removing any coarse fish from lowland trout fisheries, concluding that most "... support large coarse fish populations without serious detriment, apart from their 'nuisance value' to anglers who catch them."

The only tenable scientific justification for pike culling is where there is a long-term commitment of resources (manpower and funds) to maintain the exercise. In the real world, there will always be a conflict between the economic (cost) and scientific (effectiveness) arguments.

For culling to be economic, there must be demonstrable cost benefits which exceed culling costs. If there are sound economic reasons for culling, this raises an obvious question: why is such work not being funded at present? I doubt that any administration would fail to 'invest' a sum of 'X' into such projects if there was a predictable financial return of 'X + Y' (or 'value added'). Moreover, one would expect studies to have been performed to demonstrate the cost benefits of other means of obtaining angling income. For example, there may be a greater economic benefit from (i) ceasing pike culls, (ii) promoting the conservation of large pike, and (iii) improving access to the fisheries by pike anglers.

Because the beneficial ecological effects of intense pike culling are temporary unless culling is conducted ad infinitum, it follows that any benefits will be equally temporary. This begs the question: when funding ceases, how will culling be maintained and who will pay for it?



Last edited by NIDGE MAC on Fri Dec 17, 2010 6:52 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : STOP MESSING WITH THE EDIT BUTTON..LOL)
avatar
NIDGE MAC
UKFF Moderator
UKFF Moderator

Male
Number of posts : 7362
Age : 53
Location : YORKSHIRE!!!!!! THA NOS...
Reputation : 175
Registration date : 2008-03-15
My Bait : GETTING OUT IF AND WHEN POSSIBLE...

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by Woodchucker on Fri Dec 17, 2010 5:51 am

There is that lol!

_________________
Red Hot Chilli Piker
avatar
Woodchucker
Global Mod
Global Mod

Male
Number of posts : 8009
Age : 43
Location : Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Reputation : 141
Registration date : 2008-03-14
My Bait : Anything but savage gear shite!

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by NIDGE MAC on Fri Dec 17, 2010 6:51 am

Where the fook did the Dr Nigel P Mcloughlin-snr come from Suspect
Ok hold your hands up Shooting 1 lol!
avatar
NIDGE MAC
UKFF Moderator
UKFF Moderator

Male
Number of posts : 7362
Age : 53
Location : YORKSHIRE!!!!!! THA NOS...
Reputation : 175
Registration date : 2008-03-15
My Bait : GETTING OUT IF AND WHEN POSSIBLE...

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by Woodchucker on Fri Dec 17, 2010 6:58 am

I didnt see that lol!

_________________
Red Hot Chilli Piker
avatar
Woodchucker
Global Mod
Global Mod

Male
Number of posts : 8009
Age : 43
Location : Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Reputation : 141
Registration date : 2008-03-14
My Bait : Anything but savage gear shite!

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by nixon on Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:55 am

Innocent Whistle

_________________
avatar
nixon
UKFF Moderator
UKFF Moderator

Male
Number of posts : 4976
Age : 38
Location : Essex
Reputation : 121
Registration date : 2008-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Chew Valley

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum