C
Clive Kenyon
Guest
From what I recall from reading an article in another place the decline of roach is because they are affected by certain by-products of lady's nether regions.
-
You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...
Fined
- Thread starter Mark Anderson
- Start date
From what I recall from reading an article in another place the decline of roach is because they are affected by certain by-products of lady's nether regions.
Robert Beal
Senior Member
From what I recall from reading an article in another place the decline of roach is because they are affected by certain by-products of lady's nether regions.
I remember hearing this years ago but not for a while if it was true then there wouldnt be a fish in the rivers
Graham Elliott
Senior Member & Supporter
Robert. On the loddon survey about 70 pc became asexual and unable to produce spawn.
G
G
David Gauntlett
Senior Member
I agree with Howard that of course rivers in this country are less polluted overall....looking at the big picture as they say. However, you can pick out certain waters that are not so lucky...not by a long way, and others that are better but still not good. In the North, rivers have improved dramatically, as heavy industry has declined...some waters have virtually been brought back from the dead. The same can be said of the South to some extent, but as it never was so intensively industrialised as the North and Midlands, the difference is less noticeable in general.
There are many small rivers that continue to be hammered by pollution down here, going up and down between rebirth and almost total wipe out like a fiddlers elbow. My little river Colne is one that is getting slowly worse, or so it seems to me. Mind you, in this case it is because the river is connected to, (and in parts actually running through) the G.U.Canal, and the numbers of residential boats permanently moored on that have risen to phenomenal numbers over the last twenty years. We now get a horrendous grey sludge colouring the water during the first few heavy floods, which can persist for some weeks until it has flushed through to some extent...I wonder what that might be
Even ignoring individual cases like those, there is obviously still a long way to go on many rivers. Some are not as good as successive governments try to tell us, otherwise the EU would not be threatening the UK with punitive measures for continuously failing to bring them up to the required standards, despite promises and warnings. But, allowing for all that, some rivers are very good, and the overall trend is probably up as far as gross pollution is concerned.
However, I don't know why, I really can't explain it but I get a sense that there might be some sort of more insidious, slow working, possibly invisible and odourless chemicals that are difficult to trace at work in our rivers now. It may even be just residuals in the silt....but I feel there is something that is causing serious breeding and fry mortality issues, and other such problems. I know the madness that is the EA flood prevention team, and increases in our population and the like, are not helping....but I still feel something is lurking, something that will come out or be admitted to in due course. Mixtures of hormones and other lovelies that are in human urine because of the stupendous levels of birth pills and medications of all sorts that we now take....are obvious candidates...but who knows? As I say, no doubt we shall learn if...or what, when they are ready to tell us
Cheers, Dave.
PS....That'l teach me to be such a long winded old fart...there are several much shorter/better post's in there before me
There are many small rivers that continue to be hammered by pollution down here, going up and down between rebirth and almost total wipe out like a fiddlers elbow. My little river Colne is one that is getting slowly worse, or so it seems to me. Mind you, in this case it is because the river is connected to, (and in parts actually running through) the G.U.Canal, and the numbers of residential boats permanently moored on that have risen to phenomenal numbers over the last twenty years. We now get a horrendous grey sludge colouring the water during the first few heavy floods, which can persist for some weeks until it has flushed through to some extent...I wonder what that might be
Even ignoring individual cases like those, there is obviously still a long way to go on many rivers. Some are not as good as successive governments try to tell us, otherwise the EU would not be threatening the UK with punitive measures for continuously failing to bring them up to the required standards, despite promises and warnings. But, allowing for all that, some rivers are very good, and the overall trend is probably up as far as gross pollution is concerned.
However, I don't know why, I really can't explain it but I get a sense that there might be some sort of more insidious, slow working, possibly invisible and odourless chemicals that are difficult to trace at work in our rivers now. It may even be just residuals in the silt....but I feel there is something that is causing serious breeding and fry mortality issues, and other such problems. I know the madness that is the EA flood prevention team, and increases in our population and the like, are not helping....but I still feel something is lurking, something that will come out or be admitted to in due course. Mixtures of hormones and other lovelies that are in human urine because of the stupendous levels of birth pills and medications of all sorts that we now take....are obvious candidates...but who knows? As I say, no doubt we shall learn if...or what, when they are ready to tell us
Cheers, Dave.
PS....That'l teach me to be such a long winded old fart...there are several much shorter/better post's in there before me
Last edited:
Dai Gribble
Senior Member
A late entry for the most inaccurate post of the year. Our rivers are stuffed with phosphate which is probably the single largest reason our rivers fail to reach Good Ecological Status required under the Water Framework Directive!
Howard Cooke
Senior Member
As far as the case for, or against, a close season is concerned I can speak only as an angler. I am not a scientist or an environmentalist. My contribution to conservation amounts only to respect. Respect for the fish I catch and the river I fish and the wildlife I encounter. I was reminded yesterday when I was fighting my way through the crowds at M&S just how wonderful the river can be and what an amazing tonic and lift it can give you. Late afternoon I headed for a flooded River Kennet and landed two beautiful, hard fighting barbel.
For me, a close season is about giving something back. I care not a bit as to whether, scientifically, it makes no difference to fish stocks if we fished through or not. But I do know that there is a phrase- "angling pressure" and like pressure of any kind, a release, a break, must be good. And yes, it's a bit soppy and a bit nostalgic and sentimental, but I love the build up to the end of the season (getting one last cast in before the curtain comes down) and then the anticipation as we move through spring to the start of a new season. I like the fact it's an enforced break as I am not sure I would have the self control to keep away. The childlike excitement as the new season approaches. All the new bits of kit/tactics/rigs/rods/ rivers and bait. The recharged energy and desire, the plans and the walks along the bank to see how the river has changed since we last visited. It's not science but it is about emotion and it is magical. Well, in my opinion.
For me, a close season is about giving something back. I care not a bit as to whether, scientifically, it makes no difference to fish stocks if we fished through or not. But I do know that there is a phrase- "angling pressure" and like pressure of any kind, a release, a break, must be good. And yes, it's a bit soppy and a bit nostalgic and sentimental, but I love the build up to the end of the season (getting one last cast in before the curtain comes down) and then the anticipation as we move through spring to the start of a new season. I like the fact it's an enforced break as I am not sure I would have the self control to keep away. The childlike excitement as the new season approaches. All the new bits of kit/tactics/rigs/rods/ rivers and bait. The recharged energy and desire, the plans and the walks along the bank to see how the river has changed since we last visited. It's not science but it is about emotion and it is magical. Well, in my opinion.
C
Clive Kenyon
Guest
Wimmin or fish? :confused:
David Gauntlett
Senior Member
That is exactly how I see it Howard. No matter how much you muck about on lakes during the river closed season (though I rarely do now) there is NOTHING quite like the magical start on the rivers. Childish, irrelevant, indefensible it may be...but I still love it, so that'l do for me, long may it last
Cheers, Dave.
Cheers, Dave.
David Gauntlett
Senior Member
Graham Elliott
Senior Member & Supporter
Clive. You were discussing roach. And judging by most comedians / presenters on tv nowadays its not the only affected species......
I suggest we only drink beer in future.
I suggest we only drink beer in future.
Tony Rocca
Senior Member
Ah but David Grib, they used to be stuffed with phosphate,............nitrate, lead, mercury, zinc, selenium, antimony, etc, etc.
Our rivers ARE cleaner, overall, than in the 70's.... Fact!
You may give yourself silly post of the year.
Our rivers ARE cleaner, overall, than in the 70's.... Fact!
You may give yourself silly post of the year.
Last edited:
David Gauntlett
Senior Member
Lordy Graham....how the heck are we going to put up with that.....................
Cheers, Dave.
Cheers, Dave.
Last edited:
Jim Foxall
Senior Member
From my perspective, very few matters are black or white and grey figures highly. There are pros and cons for both keeping and abandoning the close season. I suppose a decision would have to be made on balance or alternatively, have a couple of trial years where there was no close season.
The close season is not an issue for me as I swap to trout fishing which can be great fun. By the time June comes around the trout fishing is on the decline. You don't have to spend a fortune on trout kit and can turn out with a decent set-up for around a £100 all in. For those who hanker after a bit of fishing during the close season, I'd recommend you give it a go. Some of those spring days on a trout lake/reservoir can be magical and one of the few times that I'm glad to be alive. Practice casting a bit on a field and you'll soon get the hang of it. I should just mention that Sir Rannulph and me use Loomis rods costing in the region of £700 and Loop/Lamson reels in the region of £300. From our point of view it is very important how we appear on the bank. But if you don't mind looking as though you are at the lower end of the social spectrum, then £100 of tackle will serve you well. Sir Rannulph is a very accomplished fly fisherman and did consider guiding but in the end abandoned the idea as he thought it so, well, ghilliesh. I'm sure you know what I mean.
Incidentally, I don't know where we stand with pike on the fly. It's possible to fish for trout all year round. I'm not sure where you would legally stand if you were to catch a pike on a large fly during the close season "whilst fishing for trout." Morally, I'm not sure which months should be the close season for pike as they tend to spawn early.
The close season is not an issue for me as I swap to trout fishing which can be great fun. By the time June comes around the trout fishing is on the decline. You don't have to spend a fortune on trout kit and can turn out with a decent set-up for around a £100 all in. For those who hanker after a bit of fishing during the close season, I'd recommend you give it a go. Some of those spring days on a trout lake/reservoir can be magical and one of the few times that I'm glad to be alive. Practice casting a bit on a field and you'll soon get the hang of it. I should just mention that Sir Rannulph and me use Loomis rods costing in the region of £700 and Loop/Lamson reels in the region of £300. From our point of view it is very important how we appear on the bank. But if you don't mind looking as though you are at the lower end of the social spectrum, then £100 of tackle will serve you well. Sir Rannulph is a very accomplished fly fisherman and did consider guiding but in the end abandoned the idea as he thought it so, well, ghilliesh. I'm sure you know what I mean.
Incidentally, I don't know where we stand with pike on the fly. It's possible to fish for trout all year round. I'm not sure where you would legally stand if you were to catch a pike on a large fly during the close season "whilst fishing for trout." Morally, I'm not sure which months should be the close season for pike as they tend to spawn early.
Dai Gribble
Senior Member
The post I was responding to said our rivers didn't have enough nutrients. Levels of phosphate are miles above the targets set under the Water Framework Directive and they are miles above those found naturally. Given phosphate is generally the limiting nutrient for plant growth I stand by the point I made - that to suggest our rivers have too few nutrients is plain ridiculous.
Neil Smart
Senior Member
From what I recall from reading an article in another place the decline of roach is because they are affected by certain by-products of lady's nether regions.
As as a result of oral contraceptives?
Tony Rocca
Senior Member
David,
Oh the post said much more than that...........
"I cannot believe any right minded person would consider the UK rivers more polluted now than the 70s, biggest problem with many is they are too clean, ie not enough nutrients!
So,nutrients were just part of it and whilst I grant levels of phosphate may still be high in some cases overall eutrophication on our rivers is down on what it was. Furthermore the introduction Nitrate vunerable zones has done much to reduce nutrient levels in ground and river water this last decade or two.
What YOU said was wrong which ever way you dress it.
Off out now, have a nice xmas.
Oh the post said much more than that...........
"I cannot believe any right minded person would consider the UK rivers more polluted now than the 70s, biggest problem with many is they are too clean, ie not enough nutrients!
So,nutrients were just part of it and whilst I grant levels of phosphate may still be high in some cases overall eutrophication on our rivers is down on what it was. Furthermore the introduction Nitrate vunerable zones has done much to reduce nutrient levels in ground and river water this last decade or two.
What YOU said was wrong which ever way you dress it.
Off out now, have a nice xmas.
Last edited:
Jim Foxall
Senior Member
No, Tony, don't go. I don't know what I'm going to do over Xmas without communicating with my BFW friends. I look upen BFW members as family. Sure, we might have the odd spat, but what family doesn't? I can't go down to my Club as it closed for the so called "festive period." Sir Ran is away training for his Antartic expedition. I just feel so depressed. Would as many of you as possible please stay on line? I just feel so lonely.
Howard Cooke
Senior Member
Perhaps we could all plan to post at some point tomorrow to share news of what we got for Christmas- especially if it relates to fishing. I do hope I am not one of the 10% that gets nothing.
Graham Elliott
Senior Member & Supporter
Howard. I think you will find that the 10% get everything according to the most learned poster.
I'll save a mince pie for you on the Kennet bank, just in case.
G
I'll save a mince pie for you on the Kennet bank, just in case.
G
Dai Gribble
Senior Member
The point I made is that though our rivers are generally cleaner the biggest issue in terms of water quality now is too many nutrients, so to suggest it is too little is plain wrong. In the next 15 years more money will be spent removing phosphate than any other pollutant.