|
|
Disaster and partial compensation
Dear all,
After Thames Water stopped Farmoor Flyfishing Club using the Farmoor 1 reservoir (they will reopen it next year as a catch-and-release water, allegedly with no trout under 3 lb) the Club reverted to Darlow - a very pleasant ex-gravel pit water. The recent floods however have devastated the area and the lake was closed to fishing until late August. When I went out at the beginning of September I was horrified to see many trout swimming around aimlessly just under the surface (dorsal and tail fins showing), many dead trout and a large dead carp. I did not even try to fish. I am told that it is most likely to be Argulus - a parasite - and that there is little that can be done to treat it. So I reckon that is probably the end of fishing at Darlow this season. The compensation is that Thames Water is offering concessionary tickets for Farmoor 2. I visited last Saturday and was pleased (and surprised) to come away with 5 fish - 1.5 - 2.5 lbs, one on a deep buzzer, one on a fry imitation and three on a baby daddy long-legs (many others missed - I think I strike too quickly). All fish caught on Farmoor 2 have to be killed - the compensation is that these fish have deep pink flesh and a lovely flavour. We cooked one last night - in foil (160 deg C for 25 min) with the zest from an orange, the juice from the orange, some salt and pepper. The juice was reduced at the end and a little Grand Marnier added - delicious. Tight lines Gordon |
Disaster and partial compensation
On 12 Sep, 10:39, "Gordon MacPherson"
wrote: Dear all, All fish caught on Farmoor 2 have to be killed - the compensation is that these fish have deep pink flesh and a lovely flavour. We cooked one last night - in foil (160 deg C for 25 min) with the zest from an orange, the juice from the orange, some salt and pepper. The juice was reduced at the end and a little Grand Marnier added - delicious. Tight lines Gordon Why would you want to catch plastic, artificially coloured trout, from an artificial enclosure anyway? Quite apart from the extreme environmental impact occasioned by the breeding and rearing of such fish. If you ever get the chance to eat a piece of fresh run seatrout, then you should probably avoid it, as it will immediately cure you of any illusions in respect to the taste of force fed rainbows forever. Then there would be no point in catching them either. MC |
Disaster and partial compensation
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:11:48 -0700, Mike
wrote: On 12 Sep, 10:39, "Gordon MacPherson" wrote: Dear all, All fish caught on Farmoor 2 have to be killed - the compensation is that these fish have deep pink flesh and a lovely flavour. We cooked one last night - in foil (160 deg C for 25 min) with the zest from an orange, the juice from the orange, some salt and pepper. The juice was reduced at the end and a little Grand Marnier added - delicious. Tight lines Gordon Why would you want to catch plastic, artificially coloured trout, from an artificial enclosure anyway? Quite apart from the extreme environmental impact occasioned by the breeding and rearing of such fish. If you ever get the chance to eat a piece of fresh run seatrout, then you should probably avoid it, as it will immediately cure you of any illusions in respect to the taste of force fed rainbows forever. Then there would be no point in catching them either. Maybe if he paired it with some 2 Buck Chuc...er, 1 Pound Charles.... |
Disaster and partial compensation
Mike wrote:
"Gordon MacPherson" wrote: All fish caught on Farmoor 2 have to be killed - the compensation is that these fish have deep pink flesh and a lovely flavour. We cooked one last night - in foil (160 deg C for 25 min) with the zest from an orange, the juice from the orange, some salt and pepper. The juice was reduced at the end and a little Grand Marnier added - delicious. Why would you want to catch plastic, artificially coloured trout, from an artificial enclosure anyway? Quite apart from the extreme environmental impact occasioned by the breeding and rearing of such fish. If you ever get the chance to eat a piece of fresh run seatrout, then you should probably avoid it, as it will immediately cure you of any illusions in respect to the taste of force fed rainbows forever. Then there would be no point in catching them either. I'd rather fish for wild fish as opposed to stockers but fishing for stockers is better than no fishing at all. And to say that there's no point in catching fish which don't taste like wild fish is just silly. There are many reasons to catch a fish that have nothing whatsoever to do with how the fish tastes compared to wild fish. The one thing that strikes me about Mr. MacPherson's report is how lucky I am to be an angler in North America. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Disaster and partial compensation
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message et... Mike wrote: "Gordon MacPherson" wrote: All fish caught on Farmoor 2 have to be killed - the compensation is that these fish have deep pink flesh and a lovely flavour. We cooked one last night - in foil (160 deg C for 25 min) with the zest from an orange, the juice from the orange, some salt and pepper. The juice was reduced at the end and a little Grand Marnier added - delicious. Why would you want to catch plastic, artificially coloured trout, from an artificial enclosure anyway? Quite apart from the extreme environmental impact occasioned by the breeding and rearing of such fish. If you ever get the chance to eat a piece of fresh run seatrout, then you should probably avoid it, as it will immediately cure you of any illusions in respect to the taste of force fed rainbows forever. Then there would be no point in catching them either. I'd rather fish for wild fish as opposed to stockers but fishing for stockers is better than no fishing at all. And to say that there's no point in catching fish which don't taste like wild fish is just silly. There are many reasons to catch a fish that have nothing whatsoever to do with how the fish tastes compared to wild fish. The one thing that strikes me about Mr. MacPherson's report is how lucky I am to be an angler in North America. -- Ken Fortenberry Our turn's comin' glad I'll be dead by then.... john |
Disaster and partial compensation
On 13 Sep, 00:54, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Mike wrote: Why would you want to catch plastic, artificially coloured trout, from an artificial enclosure anyway? Quite apart from the extreme environmental impact occasioned by the breeding and rearing of such fish. If you ever get the chance to eat a piece of fresh run seatrout, then you should probably avoid it, as it will immediately cure you of any illusions in respect to the taste of force fed rainbows forever. Then there would be no point in catching them either. I'd rather fish for wild fish as opposed to stockers but fishing for stockers is better than no fishing at all. And to say that there's no point in catching fish which don't taste like wild fish is just silly. There are many reasons to catch a fish that have nothing whatsoever to do with how the fish tastes compared to wild fish. The one thing that strikes me about Mr. MacPherson's report is how lucky I am to be an angler in North America. -- Ken Fortenberry Ah well, as this is a serious and important subject, I will do my best to enlighten you on the matter. In order to produce a 3lb stock rainbow, at least ten pounds, even by extremely conservative estimates, of wild marine protein is required. Other estimates and independent studies place this figure much higher. This protein is obtained by raping the seas, damaging ecosystems beyond hope of recovery, and decimating the food chain. The result is still far inferior, both genetically and in the small matter of taste, than any wild fish. So people who fish for "stockers" are financing the inevitable collapse of the oceans. This is already quite far gone in many regions. So, "fishing for stockers", is most emphatically not better than no fishing at all, indeed it contributes significantly to the demise of wild fish. Which will actually eventually result in there being no fishing at all, and a lot sooner than many people realise.. The levels of fish meal being produced for various purposes, already exceeds the oceanīs capacity to recover form such irresponsible pillage, and is increasing exponentially, as more and more greedy salmon and other marine farmers realise that they can make a very great deal of money by destroying the environment, producing an inferior result, and incidentally wiping out whole systems of anadromous fish. Ably assisted by large numbers of blind, ignorant, and often corrupt politicians, and anglers who fish for such stocked fish. The ten or so pounds of evil tasting, genetically inferior, more or less tame, force fed muck, that Mr.McPherson dragged out of Farmoor, and then soaked in Grand Marnier, likely cost about forty pounds of marine protein. The fish meal/oil producer made money on it, the fish breeder/rearer made money on it, the people who sold Mr.McPherson the tickets made money on it, and Mr.McPherson still does not know what a fish tastes like. The losers were, Mr.Mc.Pherson, and the environment, which wont be losing for much longer, as it simply can not sustain that level of damage for long. This is considerably exacerbated by the fact that despite ongoing research, there is no substitute for the fish oil in raising and feeding salmonoids and some other fish. So itīs not just about the taste. Mr. Asadi is quite correct, and I agree with him. MC |
Disaster and partial compensation
You may have noticed that I did not provide any links to Google or
anywhere else. This is because there are hundreds of thousands of them. All saying much the same thing. No responsible and conservation minded angler in full possession of his senses, and the knowledge of what he is fishing for, how it was obtained and treated, quite apart form the side-effects of eating such heavily chemically treated filth, would even contemplate "angling" for such. But doubtless you were already aware of all that Kenneth my old fruit? MC |
Disaster and partial compensation
Mike wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: Mike wrote: Why would you want to catch plastic, artificially coloured trout, from an artificial enclosure anyway? Quite apart from the extreme environmental impact occasioned by the breeding and rearing of such fish. If you ever get the chance to eat a piece of fresh run seatrout, then you should probably avoid it, as it will immediately cure you of any illusions in respect to the taste of force fed rainbows forever. Then there would be no point in catching them either. I'd rather fish for wild fish as opposed to stockers but fishing for stockers is better than no fishing at all. And to say that there's no point in catching fish which don't taste like wild fish is just silly. There are many reasons to catch a fish that have nothing whatsoever to do with how the fish tastes compared to wild fish. Ah well, as this is a serious and important subject, I will do my best to enlighten you on the matter. hatchery bashing rant snipped Fisheries management has evolved over the years and fisheries managers have learned not to endanger natives with stockers, Montana no longer stocks it's streams, but there's nothing wrong with putting stockers into degraded habitat where natural reproduction cannot occur. There is value in getting people invested in the outdoors even if it's just to catch a stocker. Most of your rant appears to be about aquaculture which is something quite different than raising and releasing juvenile fish from a fish hatchery. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Disaster and partial compensation
On 13 Sep, 13:42, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Fisheries management has evolved over the years and fisheries managers have learned not to endanger natives with stockers, Montana no longer stocks it's streams, but there's nothing wrong with putting stockers into degraded habitat where natural reproduction cannot occur. There is value in getting people invested in the outdoors even if it's just to catch a stocker. Most of your rant appears to be about aquaculture which is something quite different than raising and releasing juvenile fish from a fish hatchery. -- Ken Fortenberry Well Kenny, if you knew anything at all about the majority of "angling" in the UK and many parts of Europe, which you obviously don īt, then you would know that there are no juvenile fish raised from hatcheries and released into various waters. The fish are force fed on pellets obtained from grinding up marine protein, and released at "catchable" size for "anglers" to catch. The "catchable" size varies from water to water and what the "anglers" are prepared to pay. A 20 lb force fed rainbow is much more expensive than a 2 lb force fed rainbow, as the two pounder cost about 8 lbs of marine protein to raise, and the twenty pounder cost about 90...100 lbs. many of these fish are deformed, as a result of being held in stew ponds ( force feeding ponds with high densities of fish), many, indeed most, have damaged fins and tails, or lack them altogether. All of these fish have been heavily dosed with various hormones and chemicals, as they would otherwise not survive at all, and various diseases are quite common. None of the habitat into which they are released is "degraded", in point of fact the majority of such habitat is drinking water reservoirs, or artificial ponds specifically created for the purpose, and nearly all the fish are sterile rainbows, as releasing fertile fish, which has occasionally occurred, would result in further ecological disasters. Releasing sterile fish is generally illegal in most places. Natural habitat and fish stocks have indeed been destroyed in many places, as a direct result of releasing stocked fish into running waters which can not support an influx of large fish in that quantity, and the species pyramid is usually completely wiped out by the larger stock fish, which if not caught within a certain period of time, die of starvation after having hoovered up what was available to them. If you had the "savvy" of a common house brick, then you could quite easily find all this out for yourself. But because you are an arrogant, ignorant, **** of the very finest kind, you prefer to ignore reality, and play your silly little games here at other peopleīs expense. Have a nice day dumbo. MC |
Disaster and partial compensation
Typo correction.
For "Releasing sterile fish is generally illegal in most places." Read "Releasing fertile fish................." MC |
Disaster and partial compensation
Mike wrote in news:1189677425.941878.126290
@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: In order to produce a 3lb stock rainbow, at least ten pounds, even by extremely conservative estimates, of wild marine protein is required. I thought there must have been a reason why that bubble gum dispenser full of extruded trout feed at the hatchery was labelled "wild marine protein" -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
Disaster and partial compensation
Monstrosities like this are the norm rather than the exception on many
waters; http://www.finandfly.com/gallery/ima...c8e7fe5a57.jpg http://members.fortunecity.com/timev...glad/trout.jpg http://www.samtsai.com/pix/yadayada/p238.jpg There are plenty more, because the unfortunate "anglers" who catch these objects of pity and contempt donīt know any better, ( much like you) and actually pose for photos with them. MC |
Disaster and partial compensation
For anybody who might be seriously interested in the problem, ( which
will eventually catch you up in America as well, as a result of "knock- on" marine ecological effects, rising human population, pollution, and the almost criminal ignorance of "anglers" like Kenny, among other things ) http://www.globefish.org/index.php?i...tid=1640476505 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_meal http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/...aculture-diets There are plenty of information sites. MC |
Disaster and partial compensation
Mike wrote:
For anybody who might be seriously interested in the problem, ( which will eventually catch you up in America as well, as a result of "knock- on" marine ecological effects, rising human population, pollution, and the almost criminal ignorance of "anglers" like Kenny, among other things ) http://www.globefish.org/index.php?i...tid=1640476505 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_meal http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/...aculture-diets There are plenty of information sites. Yeah, like I said earlier you're conflating aquaculture with fisheries management. Fisheries management has come a long way from simple "put and take" in most parts of the US, although some states still do it and some anglers still follow the hatchery trucks around and fish with "pellet lures". On the other hand there is a lot of fishable water that would have no fish at all if not for fish hatcheries and the economy of northern Wisconsin would take an enormous hit if not for the annual release of thousands of musky fry from the hatcheries. Besides, when folks are fishing stocked waters that makes more room for me on wild waters. ;-) -- Ken Fortenberry |
Disaster and partial compensation
"Gordon MacPherson" wrote in message ... Dear all, After Thames Water stopped Farmoor Flyfishing Club using the Farmoor 1 reservoir (they will reopen it next year as a catch-and-release water, allegedly with no trout under 3 lb) the Club reverted to Darlow - a very pleasant ex-gravel pit water. The recent floods however have devastated the area and the lake was closed to fishing until late August. When I went out at the beginning of September I was horrified to see many trout swimming around aimlessly just under the surface (dorsal and tail fins showing), many dead trout and a large dead carp. I did not even try to fish. I am told that it is most likely to be Argulus - a parasite - and that there is little that can be done to treat it. So I reckon that is probably the end of fishing at Darlow this season. The compensation is that Thames Water is offering concessionary tickets for Farmoor 2. I visited last Saturday and was pleased (and surprised) to come away with 5 fish - 1.5 - 2.5 lbs, one on a deep buzzer, one on a fry imitation and three on a baby daddy long-legs (many others missed - I think I strike too quickly). All fish caught on Farmoor 2 have to be killed - the compensation is that these fish have deep pink flesh and a lovely flavour. We cooked one last night - in foil (160 deg C for 25 min) with the zest from an orange, the juice from the orange, some salt and pepper. The juice was reduced at the end and a little Grand Marnier added - delicious. Tight lines Gordon For info 1. Yes - I would much prefer to fish for wild trout - and do this in Wales and elsewhere when I can. The amount of wild trout fishing in the South of England is negligible. 2. There is very good natural feeding in most UK reservoirs - masses of chironomids and sedges - most fish caight are full of chironomids 3. Stocking at Farmoor is generally before the season starts, and a fish stocked at 1lb will have reached 2-2.5 lb by the end of the summer. 4. I have caught and eaten wild sea trout, and the the flavour of a grown-in farmor trout loses little by comparison - I agree completely about fish which were stocked the day before they were caught. 5. Catching trout on UK reservoirs is no easy matter - read the excellent book by Brian Church - "Stillwater flyfishing". In the evening, casting to rising trout with a hatching chironomid or sedge imitiation is an exciting and delicate affair. BW Gordon |
Disaster and partial compensation
any articles on it at all? Not much on the UK sites.
There are a few articles of mine on the matter scattered around the internet, and I am still active in various organisations such as the SACN of which I am still an executive member ( Info here; http://www.sacn.org.uk/ ), but we are mainly fighting rearguard actions, complacency, and ignorance, and have been for years. It really is quite disheartening when people on various boards ask "Where are the seatrout", or "Where are the cod", etc etc. Any angler who fishes for such fish, or expects his children to be able to, has no right to be so ignorant. Five minutes on any search machine, or the websites of various organisations which concern themselves with such matters, would give anybody interested far more answers than they want to hear. Salt water fly-fishing has become a bit of a fad for quite a few, but with the severe lack of fish, that too is fading. American groups and websites are even worse, they donīt know anything at all about many of these problems, as they are as yet not personally involved to any considerable degree, and donīt even realise they are already on the same slippery slope. It will be the same there as it is here, and they will all be weeping and wailing "how could this happen"? and similar laments, but it appears to be human nature to be preoccupied with money and personal problems, especially those matters about which one feels more or less powerless. Quite a number are totally obsessed with "catch and release" as some sort of "magic solution", but of course it does not work when there are no fish! The effects of decimating the food chain in large areas of ocean, in and around America, also has severe effects on their pelagic and anadromous fish, but it seems most just fly to Alaska or Russia or somewhere and remain blithely ignorant and/or complacent to problems at home. ROFF is a special case, and much of the animosity there is doubtless my own fault for antagonising some people. This more or less precludes any sensible discussion, as they donīt want the info, they just want to **** me about. Not much I can do about it. Most people e-mail me nowadays, as you have done. The UK group seems to have died, some loonies with a load of rubbish about MI5 or something, more or less blanketed the group recently. I think that may have been the last straw for some people. Anyway, the basic facts are fairly clear. Once large areas of ocean die as a result of these machinations, ( there are a large number of such dead areas already, they are increasing daily) they are unable to regenerate in any reasonable time frame. Even with the poisoning which is occurring to many as a result of eating "farmed" fish, ( they accumulate far more toxins than wild fish, for various reasons, and are also subjected to a massive bombardment of chemicals and hormones, [many illegal], known carcinogens, heavy metals, and a variety of other things), most farmed salmon is actually dangerous to eat now, many people still buy it, despite extensive information campaigns.. Even the most widely used colouring matter is a known serious carcinogen, it will have to kill or damage a lot more people before anybody really takes any notice. Several million anglers in the UK alone go fishing for these execrable stocked rainbows. Even when they are informed about the effects and dangers, the only result is complacency, or indeed anger and resentment at those who would "take away their pleasure". Selective blindness as a result of not wanting to lose personal gratification, such as it is. Of course it is not angling, but the vast majority know no better. In the meantime, there are a massive number of factors, especially affecting stocked fish, some extremely complex. For those who go along to their local reservoirs and pay their money for a day fishing, they just want to haul out more and bigger monstrosities. Many actually throw the fish away. There are also a large number of "anglers" clamouring for "catch and release" in these places. This is gross contempt and misuse of the unfortunate creatures involved, quite apart from any other considerations. With regard to the sandeels, these are being hoovered up in incredible masses and used as fish meal or pet food etc. For a while they were even be used to fuel power stations, maybe they still are. It has become increasingly difficult to obtain specific information, especially from the fish food companies and the "gammel-fishers". Of course these fish, ( it is a fish, related to the cod family, and not an eel) are a basic food item for many fish, and if there is no food, then there are no fish, or far fewer and smaller ones. Overfishing and pollution does the rest. Despite years of campaigning and lobbying, a very great deal of time and effort, and not a little money, our bass campaign was at last a failure, because the politicians went back on their words. It is only a matter of time before the bass are extinct around the UK coast. The same may be said of many other fish. There is no end to it, and it is a very steeply sliding spiral. There are limits beyond which fish populations can not regenerate, even if left alone, and once the basic food chain is seriously disturbed, this can happen very very quickly indeed. It is not likely that the bass will recover at all. Just following a few links from the SACN site will give you a lot more info. If you wish to do something, then join. Money is always welcome, but it is better to educate others if you can. Also, you must not expect to gain any personal advantage, or better fishing in your lifetime. Indeed, it may simply be all a total waste of time, but then again it might not. We have had a few successes as well. Anyway, have a look at the site first. Best wishes, regards, and tight lines! Mike Connor |
Disaster and partial compensation
On 13 Sep, 16:06, "Gordon MacPherson"
wrote: For info 1. Yes - I would much prefer to fish for wild trout - and do this in Wales and elsewhere when I can. The amount of wild trout fishing in the South of England is negligible. Doubtless, but fishing for stocked rainbows causes heavy environmental damage. Next time you catch one of those fish, do yourself a favour and have it analysed. I guarantee you will never eat another one after seeing the results. It takes a long time for the colouring matter to disappear from a stocked fish. In the wild it is only usually apparent in fish with a good portion of shrimp or similar in their diets, this mainly results in orange flesh, not pink. Stocked rainbows are coloured up by various means, often by means of astaxanthin. Just do a search on "carotene colour trout", or similar for a lot of info. Stocking policies vary considerably, most "top up" as required. Of course they donīt tell you that. In order to be a viable concern, a certain stocking density is required, and heavily fished fisheries like Farmoor and many others are replenished continuously, as otherwise people would not go there and pay their money. TL MC |
Disaster and partial compensation
On 13 Sep, 15:48, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Mike wrote: Yeah, like I said earlier you're conflating aquaculture with fisheries management. Fisheries management has come a long way from simple "put and take" in most parts of the US, although some states still do it and some anglers still follow the hatchery trucks around and fish with "pellet lures". On the other hand there is a lot of fishable water that would have no fish at all if not for fish hatcheries and the economy of northern Wisconsin would take an enormous hit if not for the annual release of thousands of musky fry from the hatcheries. Besides, when folks are fishing stocked waters that makes more room for me on wild waters. ;-) -- Ken Fortenberry The subject is stocked rainbow trout in a UK fishery. You donīt know anything about it. But never fear, I am sure you eventually will. Because you obviously have very extensive resources in America, it will take longer for some of these effects to have the same results, but many of your anadromous fish runs are already severely affected, and will continue to decline unless the rape of the seas around and in the vicinity of your own coastlines is stopped. Nothing on this planet is entirely divorced from anything else, ( excepting human understanding). Marine ecology has massive effects on fresh water ecology, initially the effects are mainly restricted to various marine and anadromous fish, but this has other effects. many of the interdependencies are extremely complex. So, the results of completely undermining the basic marine food chain are drastic and comparatively sudden. MASSIVE amounts of bait fish are being caught, turned into fish meal at another MASSIVE loss ratio, to produce inferior farmed fish, pet food, and a host of other things. Left in place, that bait would produce more and better fish. Quite apart from its other functions, many of which are not even known. ALL the stocked rainbow trout in Europe are the result of limited gene pool breeding from a few original steelhead strains. MASSIVE numbers of these fish are bred, reared, and grown on to "catchable" sizes using fish meal. This is accompanied and compounded by the use of chemicals and hormones, and the increased incidence of various diseases, some previously unknown, as a result of intensive farming of these fish. Deformities and the lack of fins and tails are common and symptomatic. Some extremely serious diseases have already been spread, and completely decimated even large salmon runs, as a result of transporting farmed rainbow trout for stocking purposes. Some countries have had to resort to completely poisoning rivers of all life in an attempt ( probably quite futile) to damn the problem. This could only work if there were enough fish to restock the rivers anyway. This alone is now a problem. Fish farms have absolutely devastated whole areas of coastline, making it impossible for salmon and sea trout to survive, as under and around the farm cages, and for wide areas beyond, massive concentrations of sea lice, kept largely at bay in the cages with various chemicals, attack the wild smolts, and kill them before they can move out to sea. Most predatory fish ( especially salmonoids) which are grown on beyond the fry stage, require fish meal/oil in their diets. There is no substitute for this as yet. Practically all this is provided by catching bait fish. Your resources are large, but not infinite, and your population is as yet relatively thinly spread, but growing apace. Quite a few things are affecting you now, when your population increases further, as it is steadily doing all the time, those problems will multiply and intensify. Enough. I am sure you can Google it if you are interested at all. MC |
Disaster and partial compensation
"Mike" wrote in message ups.com... On 13 Sep, 16:06, "Gordon MacPherson" wrote: For info 1. Yes - I would much prefer to fish for wild trout - and do this in Wales and elsewhere when I can. The amount of wild trout fishing in the South of England is negligible. Doubtless, but fishing for stocked rainbows causes heavy environmental damage. Next time you catch one of those fish, do yourself a favour and have it analysed. I guarantee you will never eat another one after seeing the results. It takes a long time for the colouring matter to disappear from a stocked fish. In the wild it is only usually apparent in fish with a good portion of shrimp or similar in their diets, this mainly results in orange flesh, not pink. Stocked rainbows are coloured up by various means, often by means of astaxanthin. Just do a search on "carotene colour trout", or similar for a lot of info. Stocking policies vary considerably, most "top up" as required. Of course they donīt tell you that. In order to be a viable concern, a certain stocking density is required, and heavily fished fisheries like Farmoor and many others are replenished continuously, as otherwise people would not go there and pay their money. TL MC In fact many Farmoor trout do have "orange" flesh. Gordon |
Disaster and partial compensation
Mike wrote:
"Gordon MacPherson" wrote: For info 1. Yes - I would much prefer to fish for wild trout - and do this in Wales and elsewhere when I can. The amount of wild trout fishing in the South of England is negligible. ... 3. Stocking at Farmoor is generally before the season starts, and a fish stocked at 1lb will have reached 2-2.5 lb by the end of the summer. snip Stocking policies vary considerably, most "top up" as required. Of course they donīt tell you that. In order to be a viable concern, a certain stocking density is required, and heavily fished fisheries like Farmoor and many others are replenished continuously, as otherwise people would not go there and pay their money. I am quite impressed at the breadth and depth of your knowledge about all things fishing, Mike. I mean a guy living in Germany who knows more about the stocking policies of a particular place in the UK than the person who actually fishes there must possess vast amounts of arcane, detailed knowledge. We are truly blessed to have you in our presence and to anyone on roff who considers you a laughingstock I would offer this post as affirmation of your worth here. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Disaster and partial compensation
On 13 Sep, 17:58, "Gordon MacPherson"
wrote: In fact many Farmoor trout do have "orange" flesh. Gordon Nevertheless, they are topped up from a "stocking pond", and the fish in the stocking pond are fed on fish meal pellets which invariably contain colouring matter. http://www.thameswateruk.co.uk/UK/re...epage_ 000857 It is not a viable proposition to tip that many fish into the water at once, they would hoover it clean of all aquatic life, and then die of starvation. The stocking densities are carefully calculated, also according to fishery returns, and enough fish are "topped up" to maintain the stocking density more or less suited to the number of anglers, and ensure that anglers catch enough, without denuding the water. This is how virtually all these waters are run nowadays. There is no other way to do it. In quite a few waters there may be native browns which grow on quite well, they are not stocked all that often, as they are more difficult and slower to grow on than triploid rainbows, and are a lot more expensive. Whatever. Have a nice day. MC |
Disaster and partial compensation
On 13 Sep, 18:05, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: I am quite impressed at the breadth and depth of your knowledge about all things fishing, Mike. I mean a guy living in Germany who knows more about the stocking policies of a particular place in the UK than the person who actually fishes there must possess vast amounts of arcane, detailed knowledge. We are truly blessed to have you in our presence and to anyone on roff who considers you a laughingstock I would offer this post as affirmation of your worth here. -- Ken Fortenberry Whatever you say dumbo. I never fail to be amazed and depressed at your lack of knowledge and silly behaviour. MC |
Disaster and partial compensation
The usual recommended stocking density for good water quality is 60 Kg per acre. As the Thames Water Utilities very kindly offer the information on their website, ( which I noted above, but Kenny is simply too stupid to read), that the reservoir has 240 acres, and they have an annual stocking of 30,000 trout if they stick to the usual average that means 125 trout per acre at about 500 grams each, if they stock them all at once. Some waters do this. They do not state what they do here, but they do mention stocking ponds. MC |
Disaster and partial compensation
Oh, and as he is also probably far too stupid to do the simple
arithmetic, that means 15,000 Kg of trout, at a pellet/protein conversion ration of at least 5-1 and probably a good deal more, as they stock grown on browns as well as rainbows, ( browns grow slower and eat more), that 15 tonnes of fish cost 75 tonnes of marine bait fish. MC |
Disaster and partial compensation
Mike wrote:
... if they stock them all at once. Some waters do this. They do not state what they do here, ... Well, not knowing what the hell you're talking about has never stopped you from pronouncing before, there was no expectation of anything different this time. But do please carry on, your hysteria is hysterical. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Disaster and partial compensation
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:43:17 -0700, Mike
wrote: Oh, and as he is also probably far too stupid to do the simple arithmetic, that means 15,000 Kg of trout, at a pellet/protein conversion ration of at least 5-1 and probably a good deal more, as they stock grown on browns as well as rainbows, ( browns grow slower and eat more), that 15 tonnes of fish cost 75 tonnes of marine bait fish. MC Um...what do carp in London have to do with trout in Oxford...? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, Dickie |
Disaster and partial compensation
One further point of interest dumbo. I did not always live in Germany,
and for quite a while when I lived in England, I worked part time as a fishery officer for the Northumbrian Water Authority.Which is now simply known as "Northumbrian Water". As I have also done for several water authorities here. In case you are also too stupid to Google that, ( surprising really, as somebody recently intimated that anybody asking questions on Usenet should automatically have enough "net savvy" to use Google), here is the link; http://www.nwl.co.uk/Reservoirsenv.aspx I am sure they would even provide you with information as to the rearing and stocking techniques and policies used on their large collection of waters, if you remembered your manners long enough to ask nicely.Maybe this information is even on their site? Of course, you would have to look and see. However this may be, you really are a most tiresome idiot, and I canīt be bothered with you any more. MC |
Disaster and partial compensation
|
Disaster and partial compensation
Mike wrote:
... In case you are also too stupid to Google that, ( surprising really, as somebody recently intimated that anybody asking questions on Usenet should automatically have enough "net savvy" to use Google), here is the link; ... You should have followed your own advice before you started pontificating about Farmoor. Remember to Google *before* you pontificate so you don't end up with that terrible foot taste in your mouth. LOL !! -- Ken Fortenberry |
Disaster and partial compensation
On 13 Sep, 19:22, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: You should have followed your own advice before you started pontificating about Farmoor. Remember to Google *before* you pontificate so you don't end up with that terrible foot taste in your mouth. LOL !! -- Ken Fortenberry Well Kenny, you are a stupid ****, and an evil *******, but I most pity you for the taste in your mouth, must be terrible having your head up your arse all the time. Now be a good little man and go and play with Dickie boy or something, you are just completely out of your league. You know just about zero about either trout or fishing, and you are far too stupid to learn anything. MC |
Disaster and partial compensation
Ken wrote:
Mike wrote: Ken wrote: Mike wrote: Ken wrote: Mike wrote: ....etc. Well at least you guys are talking. This is a major step forward. Have you considered counselling? Drugs? Massage therapy? Lobotomies? :-) |
Disaster and partial compensation
On Sep 13, 12:39 pm, salmobytes wrote:
Ken wrote: Mike wrote: Ken wrote: Mike wrote: Ken wrote: Mike wrote: ...etc. Well at least you guys are talking. This is a major step forward. Have you considered counselling? Drugs? Massage therapy? Lobotomies? :-) Barriers to effective communications: The choice of words or language in which a sender encodes a message will influence the quality of communication. In the English language, there are about 500 basic words in which are used everyday. These 500 words have over 10,000 different meanings. Because language is a symbolic representation of a phenomenon, room for interpretation and distortion of the meaning exists. Misreading body language, tone and other non-verbal forms of communication Ignoring non-verbal language Selective hearing Hesitation to be candid Distrust Value judgment Power struggles Unreliable transmission (noisy, inconsistent) Defensiveness (Defensiveness is a typical barrier in a work situation especially when negative information or criticism is involved.) Distorted perception (How we perceive communication is affected by experiences. Perception is also affected by the organizational relationship two people have. For example, communication from a superior may be perceived differently than from a subordinate or peer.) Guilt Distortions from the past Stereotyping (Assuming the other person has certain characteristics based on the group to which they belong without validating that they in fact have these characteristics.) Cultural differences (Effective communication requires deciphering the basic values, motives, aspirations, and assumptions that operate across geographical lines. Given some dramatic differences across cultures, the opportunities for miscommunication in cross-cultural situations are enormous.) Frank Reid |
Disaster and partial compensation
salmobytes wrote:
Ken wrote: Mike wrote: Ken wrote: Mike wrote: Ken wrote: Mike wrote: ...etc. Well at least you guys are talking. This is a major step forward. Have you considered counselling? No. Drugs? Absolutely. Better living through chemistry and the left-handed tobacco is always a good choice. Massage therapy? Yeah, not so much, you wouldn't believe what goes on in some of those places. Lobotomies? I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy. And thanks for asking !! -- Ken Fortenberry |
Disaster and partial compensation
On Sep 13, 10:39 am, salmobytes wrote:
Ken wrote: Mike wrote: Ken wrote: Mike wrote: Ken wrote: Mike wrote: ...etc. Well at least you guys are talking. This is a major step forward. Have you considered counselling? Drugs? Massage therapy? Lobotomies? :-) A lobotomy would be good, even with half a brain he would be twice as smart as the rest of us. unless of course they damaged or removed the "Google" are pf tje brain" |
Disaster and partial compensation
"Frank Reid" wrote in message ups.com... On Sep 13, 12:39 pm, salmobytes wrote: Ken wrote: Mike wrote: Ken wrote: Mike wrote: Ken wrote: Mike wrote: ...etc. Well at least you guys are talking. This is a major step forward. Have you considered counselling? Drugs? Massage therapy? Lobotomies? :-) Barriers to effective communications: The choice of words or language in which a sender encodes a message will influence the quality of communication. In the English language, there are about 500 basic words in which are used everyday. These 500 words have over 10,000 different meanings. Because language is a symbolic representation of a phenomenon, room for interpretation and distortion of the meaning exists. Misreading body language, tone and other non-verbal forms of communication Ignoring non-verbal language Selective hearing Hesitation to be candid Distrust Value judgment Power struggles Unreliable transmission (noisy, inconsistent) Defensiveness (Defensiveness is a typical barrier in a work situation especially when negative information or criticism is involved.) Distorted perception (How we perceive communication is affected by experiences. Perception is also affected by the organizational relationship two people have. For example, communication from a superior may be perceived differently than from a subordinate or peer.) Guilt Distortions from the past Stereotyping (Assuming the other person has certain characteristics based on the group to which they belong without validating that they in fact have these characteristics.) Cultural differences (Effective communication requires deciphering the basic values, motives, aspirations, and assumptions that operate across geographical lines. Given some dramatic differences across cultures, the opportunities for miscommunication in cross-cultural situations are enormous.) Left out the most important barrier. As often as not (quite possibly MORE often than not), one or more parties to the discussion are not much interested in conducting a meaningful dialogue.....or even in communicating at all. Wolfgang who, breaking somewhat with his usual (and generally useful) policy, will lay claim to a certain level of expertise in this particular matter. :) |
Disaster and partial compensation
Mike wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: You should have followed your own advice before you started pontificating about Farmoor. Remember to Google *before* you pontificate so you don't end up with that terrible foot taste in your mouth. LOL !! Well Kenny, you are a stupid ****, and an evil *******, but I most pity you for the taste in your mouth, must be terrible having your head up your arse all the time. Now be a good little man and go and play with Dickie boy or something, you are just completely out of your league. You know just about zero about either trout or fishing, and you are far too stupid to learn anything. Another keeper. That's *two* from this thread. The first proof positive His Loony Mikeness will pontificate authoritatively about things a subsequent Google proves to be erroneous and the second, this one, which proves His Loony Mikeness will eventually stoop to invective and name-calling whenever someone disagrees with him. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Disaster and partial compensation
On 13 Sep, 20:15, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: -- Ken Fortenberry More silly propaganda Kenny boy? Nobody takes it seriously any more, itīs what you always do when you think you might be making a complete **** of yourself again. Donīt know why you bother really, you simply are a ****. No help for that. Itīs why everybody dislikes and distrusts you, they just know what you are. MC |
Disaster and partial compensation
Mike wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: Mike wrote: Well Kenny, you are a stupid ****, and an evil *******, ... Another keeper. That's *two* from this thread. The first proof positive His Loony Mikeness will pontificate authoritatively about things a subsequent Google proves to be erroneous and the second, this one, which proves His Loony Mikeness will eventually stoop to invective and name-calling whenever someone disagrees with him. More silly propaganda Kenny boy? ... Nope, just pointing out the obvious. Nobody takes it seriously any more, itīs what you always do when you think you might be making a complete **** of yourself again. Well, I don't know anyone who takes *you* seriously anymore. As for "it", I've found that any thread which becomes a ****ing contest isn't taken seriously after the first couple of rounds. Isn't it about time for you to do what you always do when you have a meltdown on roff ? You know, swish your cape, declare all of roff useless and yourownself above it all while vowing to never return. ... Again. LOL !! -- Ken Fortenberry |
Disaster and partial compensation
On Sep 13, 12:17 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Mike wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: Mike wrote: Well Kenny, you are a stupid ****, and an evil *******, ... Another keeper. That's *two* from this thread. The first proof positive His Loony Mikeness will pontificate authoritatively about things a subsequent Google proves to be erroneous and the second, this one, which proves His Loony Mikeness will eventually stoop to invective and name-calling whenever someone disagrees with him. More silly propaganda Kenny boy? ... Nope, just pointing out the obvious. Nobody takes it seriously any more, itīs what you always do when you think you might be making a complete **** of yourself again. Well, I don't know anyone who takes *you* seriously anymore. As for "it", I've found that any thread which becomes a ****ing contest isn't taken seriously after the first couple of rounds. Isn't it about time for you to do what you always do when you have a meltdown on roff ? You know, swish your cape, declare all of roff useless and yourownself above it all while vowing to never return. ... Again. LOL !! -- Ken Fortenberry Well now we know why villages use to have Idiots. Before the days of radio and TV good entertainment was probably a rare commodity. Now that Village Idiots have been structurally unemployed a lot of them seem to have taken up residence on the web. I don't see how Mike makes it pay, nobody buys hime a meal or a drink. I wonder if Mike and Ilk have a guild or union. |
Disaster and partial compensation
On 13 Sep, 21:17, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Well, I don't know anyone who takes *you* seriously anymore. -- Ken Fortenberry Kenny boy, you donīt really know anybody,and nobody wants to know you, thatīs why you get your jollies trying to provoke people and posturing here and elsewhere on Usenet. Nobody here who has watched your antics over the years would trust you as far as they could throw you. You are a nasty inadequate little ****, who apparently labours under the misapprehension that you can somehow gain kudos by upsetting and denigrating others. Doubtless a psychologist or even a psychiatrist would have a field day with you, but all you are to most people here is just a nasty little ****. Oh you may occasionally give them a laugh, but they donīt like you at all, and they only refrain from telling you so, because they know what you are capable of in terms if nastiness, they canīt get rid of you, and they just donīt want to get involved with such a nasty little ****. I must say, you richly deserve it. MC |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Đ2004 - 2006 FishingBanter