Disaster and partial compensation

On Sep 13, 2:57?am, Mike wrote:
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 ocean´s 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 it´s not just about the taste.

Mr. Asadi is quite correct, and I agree with him.

MC- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"In order to produce a 3lb stock
rainbow, at least ten pounds, even by extremely conservative
estimates, of wild marine protein is required. "
Time to go back to google. There's a place not far from here that
makes ingredients for fish food. The fish are processed to make
fillets and the guts, feathers fins and tails are used to make "wild
marine protein". In addition to fish they process a lot of Dungeness
crab nearby and the left over parts of the crab are ground up and made
into fish food. Those crab shells along with shrimp shells contain
some strange artifical chemical that cause the flesh of trout to turn
red.

On 14 Sep, 21:58, BJ Conner wrote:

Time to go back to google. There's a place not far from here that
makes ingredients for fish food. The fish are processed to make
fillets and the guts, feathers fins and tails are used to make "wild
marine protein". In addition to fish they process a lot of Dungeness
crab nearby and the left over parts of the crab are ground up and made
into fish food. Those crab shells along with shrimp shells contain
some strange artifical chemical that cause the flesh of trout to turn
red.

I don´t need Google for that, but you need to learn to read, so here´s
an extract and a link for you;

QUOTE

What Is Fishmeal

Fishmeal is a generic term for a nutrient-rich feed ingredient used
primarily in diets for domestic animals, sometimes used as a high-
quality organic fertilizer. Fishmeal can be made from almost any type
of seafood but is generally manufactured from wild-caught, small
marine fish that contain a high percentage of bones and oil, and
usually deemed not suitable for direct human consumption. These fishes
are considered 'industrial' since most of them are caught for the sole
purpose of fishmeal and fish oil production. A small percentage of
fishmeal is rendered from the by-catch of other fisheries, and by-
products or trimmings created during processing (e.g., fish filleting
and cannery operations) of various seafood products destined for
direct human consumption.

UNQUOTE

http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/...aculture-diets

You might also look up "Industrial fishing" while you are about it.

MC

"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

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 don´t 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

"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 don´t 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

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

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 don´t 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

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

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