take pike or leave pike?

stevoman

Hi Folks,

If you catch a pike in a stretch of river that has trout in it is it better to remove the pike from that stretch of river or return it after being caught from a conservation point of view of the trout numbers in the river?

views please.

bernard0368

Leave it, no point in upsetting the balance. I know some who would say move the fish if possible but I would be against that. Nature is supposed to know best.

coolwings

Is this a trout fishery, or a pike fishery, or a mixed fishery?

If it is managed for maximum trout biomass, then removing all other species except for forage/prey species is recommended.

If it's a pike river the trout are prey but also competitors for smaller prey, and it is very complex. The best answer then lies in which species has the better spawning and a balance by anglers catches and their harvest adjusting the population of both.

If it's a mixed fishery, the balance there already should be preserved, return both pike AND trout.

stevoman

coolwings wrote: »

Is this a trout fishery, or a pike fishery, or a mixed fishery?

If it is managed for maximum trout biomass, then removing all other species except for forage/prey species is recommended.

If it's a pike river the trout are prey but also competitors for smaller prey, and it is very complex. The best answer then lies in which species has the better spawning and a balance by anglers catches and their harvest adjusting the population of both.

If it's a mixed fishery, the balance there already should be preserved, return both pike AND trout.

its the local river, but very very few large trout in it. any trout i have caught have all been sprats with the ecception of a few approx 8 inch trout. and all have been put back in. i caught only one nice sized trout in it this year and that was a pound in weight but no large trout in the river at all.

its not nown as a pike river by any means either.

coolwings

Well I would not look at it as it is now and decide what kind of water it is based on what I see.
That would be like a new farmer coming into a derelict farm, and observing the fields are growing gorse and thistles, and there are a couple of half wild sheep. Then saying "So that's the "balance" and I can't interfere".
People say you should do this but it's over-simplistic, and ensures bad fisheries (or bad farms!)
What is sensible is to look at the characteristics of the place, and decide what species belong and will do well there. Then manage it in favour of those species.
So to get back to our farm example, the boggy hill farm gets weeds removed and good plants added to replace them, and then sheep, but not tillage. A lowland flat farm might get tillage or big heavy beef or dairy but not sheep. And they do very well in their proper place. And the total yield from the farm is many times greater when run in an informed sympathetic way.

Getting back to your local river: If the river is fast flowing with lots of shallow gravel stickles and runs, then fish that live and feed in the thin fast water will be best, and that's trout.
You see, trout live and feed in pools below deep runs, and the bigger trout hider in deeper pools coming out at night to feed on the "drift" which is the downstream flow of flies and nymphs that live and hatch from the gravelly stoney runs, and then get carried down to the pools and the trout.

On the other hand, if your local river is all deep slow pools with one or two fast runs, genarally a muddy clay bottom, then trout will not have great area of feeding grounds. But fast water coarse fish will be the best species, like perch, roach, pike and so on.

Bear in mind that the "bad" water weeds alter the ecology to suit themselves and filter the water with fibrous roots so as to lay mud on top of clean gravel. They are best removed. The "good" weeds allow the riverbed to stay as it is and whatever species of fish suit it, will automatically do well. Look up the weed management in the UK chalkstreams, or CFB research papers by Dr Martin O'Grady to learn about this. A garden fork and waders and 10-15 minutes turning over shallow run gravel every fishing trip can make more wild fish than restocking ever will.
We in Ireland have a lot of streams that flow slow and still between clumps of rushes with muddy root clumps, where in another country those very same places might look like a little part of the Itchen or Test with huge trout, or chub or barbel and a clean gravel bottom full of little invertebrate food for fish. That is a reesult of no maintenance and reduced water flows (from our land drainage over the centuries) where regular fishery work is not put in to restore the balance that was lost due to less water being in the river.

If it's run the way that suits it, it will always have more fish than if left alone. Just like a garden or farm. The early Chinese civilisations and monks in the middle ages already knew that when they made carp and tench ponds.

The idea of leaving it alone is relatively recent, and a reaction to the highly damaging practises of the 1950s - 1980s period when many rivers were drained and dredged, gravel runs dug out by machine, water abstraction, industrial pollution and overfishing really got going in a big way.
It's true that doing nothing is far better than doing the stuff that was done on industrial scales in that period.

An over-detailed answer to the question I guess! But it's the hobby I'm interested in.

topper75

Not gone on the farm analogy coolwings - just that a farm isn't ever supposed to be a complex ecosystem.

coolwings

topper75 wrote: »

Not gone on the farm analogy coolwings - just that a farm isn't ever supposed to be a complex ecosystem.

True. But restricted number of desired species produces higher yield of those than an over-complex system in which many species exist in competition where the niche for each one is too small to allow high numbers or growth to good sizes of that species.

You don't eliminate the others completely, just reduce their numbers. On a farm the fox and badger still hold sway in the cover, the wooded area, hedges around the fields. So it is with pike in a trout fishery (or trout in a pike fishery) always a few to see - but if we have sense and want to get good fishing the middle ground is made suitable for the one we want more of.

stevenmu

stevoman wrote: »

its the local river, but very very few large trout in it. any trout i have caught have all been sprats with the ecception of a few approx 8 inch trout. and all have been put back in. i caught only one nice sized trout in it this year and that was a pound in weight but no large trout in the river at all.

its not nown as a pike river by any means either.

If there's plenty of smaller trout but just not very much bigger trout, it would suggest to me that pike aren't the problem. It's possible that the river simply isn't suitable for bigger trout (which could possibly be changed as per Coolwings' post), or it could be that there's actually too many trout all competing giving non the chance to grow very big. So it's possible that more pike would then thin out the numbers allowing the best fish to prosper more.

coolwings

The single biggest thing affecting numbers of large brown trout in a river (that has clean water and food) is spawning.
After that comes instream cover, and fallen wood / log-jams are tops.
With spawning you have young-uns to grow up.
With food they can grow up. The food chain must be complete across size range and seasons in time. So key trout places will be near to where minnows have a place to spawn, etc.
With cover they can avoid predators where they are and won't drop downstream looking for a secure lodge.
If anglers put the middle ones back, or can't catch them for one reason or other, more grow up to be big.
It's a case of either finding places that tick more boxes, or adding those features to places near where you live.

Google these papers:
Importance of woody debris for stream dwelling brown trout (Salmo trutta L.)
Karl Sundbaum

Movement patterns of large brown trout in the mainstream au sable river, Michigan
DIANA James S. ; HUDSON John P. ; CLARK Richard D.

Range of Movement and Daily Activity of Wild Brown Trout in the South Branch Au Sable River, Michigan
Gary E. Regal

Figure out what the trout like and how far they are willing to go to find it. Some of us have been making cover for our fish for years. We just don't talk too much about it due to bad results of doing so. For a long time I have carried a bowsaw and clothesline maybe one trip a year when going fishing in bad fishing weather and "made" my fishing better for the other days. The key is, due to activities of fish killing idiots: never clear a standing spot on the bank, and a low profile casting "alleyway" up-down the river is far better than casting places from bank towards water.

neil_hosey

PUT IT BACK!!! NO MATTTER WHERE IT IS!!

sick of ppl removing pike for this reason. I would love to start doing it with trout, but im not that much of a narrowminded scum bag.

Trout anglers that remove them need to wake up and cop the fúck on.


As a mod of nature and bird watching, I'm sure you can understand from pike anglers point of view how frustrating it is to see this with all the hassle pike are getting at the moment from "other" sources...

and thanks coolwings for another informative post, here and on fti

Zzippy

Some good stuff by coolwings, but getting back to the OP's post, the question is moot - whether you want to remove the pike or not, unless it is under 50cm and you are taking it, it is illegal to move fish. The only people authorised to remove fish in the manner suggested are fisheries officers and people granted Section 18 authorisations for survey work.

dubsid

I have spent a long time fishing for Pike in Ireland. The places with any decent fish are getting fewer and farther between them. What is up with people taking matters into their own hands? There are enough scumbags cleaning out the waterways without this kind of ****.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

stevoman wrote: »

its the local river, but very very few large trout in it. any trout i have caught have all been sprats with the ecception of a few approx 8 inch trout. and all have been put back in. i caught only one nice sized trout in it this year and that was a pound in weight but no large trout in the river at all.

its not nown as a pike river by any means either.

well if you take out the pike, then there will be more smaller trout in the river. Pike should never be taken out of a wild river. The pike will eat small, injured and dead trout and also small and injured PIKE. Taking a 7lb plus pike put of the water will only result in a few more smaller pike in the river. Thanks for posting before killing

I hate it when people blame pike for lack of big trout in rivers (im NOT referring to the op), most of the time there arn't big trout in rivers is because people eat the big trout! and then blame the poor pike! (If you havnt guessed, im a pike angler )

edit: Coolwings, first post is superb!

coolwings

Mira Mealy Leg wrote: »

... I hate it when people blame pike for lack of big trout in rivers (im NOT referring to the op), most of the time there arn't big trout in rivers is because people eat the big trout! and then blame the poor pike! ...

Not just competitor species and predators ... there is the river itself.

If they looked after the WATER and CHANNEL, the fish can look after themselves.

Several years ago I was talking to a very bright angler about fishing for big trout. We were talking specifically about truly big trout here, over 15 lbs, and where and how to fish for them.
He said you need to have an intact food chain. From the moment they hatch out of the egg until the day they reach 30lbs, there must always be plenty of the ideal size food nearby.
If there is a gap in the chain, that's the size the biggest trout gets to, since they won't grow enough to access the next size food item, and it becomes a competitor for food of the smaller trout with no contra-payback of also being a food for the bigger trout.

Now we have lots of places in Ireland where trout grow fast, but the largest size fish are incredibly rare. I wanted to find out why.
So I put a lot of study into research into everything that has an impact on this and I discovered we have a few problems, not all to do with food.

Say you are looking at your river wanting to catch a big trout. The food is there, the spawning is there, lots of small trout are there. But no big ones.
Does this sound familiar?

One possible example:
OK what happens when a trout grows is it looks for cover while resting, a place to feed, a place to spawn, and the food itself.
Say the local club comes along and tidies up the river, pulling out the wood midstream and along the banks. There goes your cover. When the trout get to eg 10" length, they will now migrate downstream looking for a hold. Result, 100% loss of big trout.

I have in mind a wonderful place on the River Dodder where a fallen in-river tree was removed and 200 metres down and 150 metres up went dead as far as trout over 4-5 ounces are concerned, 15 years later it's still dead. But we fished for trout between 1/2lb and 3/4 lb at that same spot for 10 years before the tidying up exercise.

That is an example of a "missing feature" which destroys the water for fishing. How many people can look carefully enough to see what is not there, and add it?
In this case the simple 2 minute job of adding a branch, plank or tree root tied unobtrusively to the bank with a cord and hanging down in the water into14" of water or more will transform the river for 300-400 meters up and downstream as far as having big trout is concerned, because that's how far they will move out of cover to feed between evening and morning.

Often it's just about adding the missing thing - not adding stocked fish. If the river was already "right" the desired fish would already "be there".

themaestro

I have read the entire thread from start to finish and I have taken all views into account, however its like everything else in this country at the moment .......... overly complicated to the point where everyone is guessing what the best solution.

There is a great expression used for an instance such as this and it goes as follows: "if its not broken, don't attempt to fix it, especially if you don't know how". In my opinion all fish no matter what species, how big or how small should be returned alive to all waters if angling is your hobby. This of course does not apply to privately owned lakes as its no-ones business what happens or in the case of commercial fishing.

I have been a pike angler for the last 10 years and a pretty good one, however the numbers of pike being caught is rapidly decreasing every year. Judging from this forum this may be as a result of nationals trying to restore some sort of imaginary balance (yes nationals not non-nationals).

Please leave our Wateways alone and just enjoy them for what they are.

Zzippy

themaestro wrote: »

I have read the entire thread from start to finish and I have taken all views into account, however its like everything else in this country at the moment .......... overly complicated to the point where everyone is guessing what the best solution.

There is a great expression used for an instance such as this and it goes as follows: "if its not broken, don't attempt to fix it, especially if you don't know how". In my opinion all fish no matter what species, how big or how small should be returned alive to all waters if angling is your hobby. This of course does not apply to privately owned lakes as its no-ones business what happens or in the case of commercial fishing.

I have been a pike angler for the last 10 years and a pretty good one, however the numbers of pike being caught is rapidly decreasing every year. Judging from this forum this may be as a result of nationals trying to restore some sort of imaginary balance (yes nationals not non-nationals).

Please leave our Wateways alone and just enjoy them for what they are.

Actually this does apply to private lakes. Private fishery owners still need legal permission to move fish. The EU Habitats Directive prohibits the introduction of alien species into any habitat, that would include the likes of carp. Such permission should never be granted IMO except where the lake is dug out specifically to create a fishery and is therefore a new habitat, AND where there is no chance of introduced fish escaping into nearby watercourses. The widespread introduction of carp into many already established lakes over the last few years is nothing short of a disgrace.
Anyone doing this without permission should be prosecuted and the introduced fish removed if possible.

Sorry a bit off topic I know, but still important.

mrttattoo

there is only one real sollution to your small trout problem and i hate to say it but find somewhere that has a higher num of big trout, i have been fishing my local river sucesfully for 15 yrs and have stuck with big fish tactics for the last four years only catching one big trout(which in my opinion is anything over3.5lbs) a 5.5lb ferox and worth all the effort
if its fish like this u are after its tuff going but they tend to take up residence in certain places slower bends with deeper water and more cover, over hanging or submerged trees. do somr research of the river u are fishing see have there been any reports of decent size trout and where they have been caught...

blog_blog_blog

From a study Ive read on English trout lakes where pike have been removed or culled. There is a higher instance of diseased trout and large amounts of smaller jack pike. The larger pike control the stocks to some extend , by eating slow/sick/smaller fish. Removing these larger pike, actually puts the stock at risk