Thanks Thanks:  25
Likes Likes:  148
Page 12 of 20 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 193

Thread: River Tyne 2020

  1. #111
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Makemland
    Posts
    2,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rrrr View Post
    That could be the case, i think alot of the febs are due to the fact theres nowt to eat at sea so they have to search out new feeding areas. But then again would the river not sustain more coarse fish and browns if there was more food available due to less smolts. This isnt based on anything scientific just me thinking aloud really so i could be way off the mark.

    Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
    A lot of people think the Cormorants are feeding inland because of a lack of food at sea.That is absolute rubbish.Our river estuaries are full of small Codling,Whiting, Coalfish and Flounders.They are feeding inland because it is easier for them to catch fish in smaller ,shallower waters than wider,deeper areas.And the young birds just follow the full grown ones when they fledge.Some birds don,t even go back down to coast now,they just roost inland.Only going back to the coast to breed.
    This is my fishing rod!.
    There are many like it but this one is mine.
    Without me,my rod is useless!.
    Without my rod,i am useless!.

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    North Tyne
    Posts
    601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NEbody View Post
    So what youíre saying is that the hatchery made everything better and it didnít matter that the coke/gas/tar works on the estuary or the ICI plant at Prudhoe had been pouring filth into the estuary (legally until the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act of 1961 and the Control of Pollution Act of 1974 came into force) and that Northumbrian Water Authority/Limited/Group have wasted around a billion of their customers pounds in sorting out Tynesideís sewage disposal over the last 50 years?

    Peter Gray ran a good hatchery (also paid for by Northumbrian Water) and was an enthusiastic ambassador for stocking. The hatchery was in the right place at the right time to take advantage of the clean-up but salmon would have returned without it (they already were). On the other hand, the hatchery would have made little difference if the clean-up hadnít happened.
    No not what Iím saying although I do think the hatchery has a positive impact on the Tyne numbers of fish but I can argue that later , what Iím saying is or starting get to say is you could take a river like the Irthing wich is very easily accessible to keilder hatchery from the top forest tracks, it would be a great experiment to see the outcome of stocking a river, monitor the population of the river for 3-5 years then take broad stock and
    See if you can get a recovery going... easily manageable now keilder has dropped its stocking levels and all that spare equipment is sitting around.
    Would maybe settle the hatchery argument once and for all, although I suppose you could argue being a west coast river it would not be a fair comparison.

  3. #113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mattytree View Post
    No not what Iím saying although I do think the hatchery has a positive impact on the Tyne numbers of fish but I can argue that later , what Iím saying is or starting get to say is you could take a river like the Irthing wich is very easily accessible to keilder hatchery from the top forest tracks, it would be a great experiment to see the outcome of stocking a river, monitor the population of the river for 3-5 years then take broad stock and
    See if you can get a recovery going... easily manageable now keilder has dropped its stocking levels and all that spare equipment is sitting around.
    Would maybe settle the hatchery argument once and for all, although I suppose you could argue being a west coast river it would not be a fair comparison.
    But surely the Irthing will just re-stock itself cos that's what rivers do River Tyne 2020 of course it will need to do it from its own stock to keep the genetic integrity intact River Tyne 2020

    Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Northumberland
    Posts
    1,262

    Default

    This (Northumberlandís biggest waterfall), just upstream of Gilsland limits how far salmon can get up the Irthing.
    Crammel Linn - Northumberland's Biggest... © Paul Swindell cc-by-sa/2.0 :: Geograph Britain and Ireland

    As far as Iím aware, thereís no reason why salmon from the Eden shouldnít use the lower reaches of the Irthing if they want to but Iíve never heard of it being a significant salmon fishery: perhaps those who fish in that neck of the woods can tell us if itís had a history?

  5. #115
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    North Tyne
    Posts
    601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NEbody View Post
    This (Northumberlandís biggest waterfall), just upstream of Gilsland limits how far salmon can get up the Irthing.
    Crammel Linn - Northumberland's Biggest... © Paul Swindell cc-by-sa/2.0 :: Geograph Britain and Ireland

    As far as Iím aware, thereís no reason why salmon from the Eden shouldnít use the lower reaches of the Irthing if they want to but Iíve never heard of it being a significant salmon fishery: perhaps those who fish in that neck of the woods can tell us if itís had a history?
    Scarpared that idea then ! All those pristine head waters it does look amazing fly water for trout above ! Same can be said for warksburn and that is stuffed with Salmon up too the waterfall at rosesbower, I doubt the Icelandic cure to opening up head waters with dynamite would ever be an option though.

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    carlisle
    Posts
    1,417

    Default

    Just one question for the doubters regarding restocking , now i might be wrong here but are there rivers in iceland that totally rely on a restocking programme to populate some rivers as salmon cant successfully breed because of the silt.

  7. #117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by razzer View Post
    Just one question for the doubters regarding restocking , now i might be wrong here but are there rivers in iceland that totally rely on a restocking programme to populate some rivers as salmon cant successfully breed because of the silt.
    That is a totally different situation.
    Those rivers can't sustain any salmon in their natural state due to a lack of any successful spawning even when's wild strays do enter the river. The river can't repopulate on it's own and it's virtually impossible to change the river to allow successful spawning.
    The Tyne can sustain natural spawning so throwing a couple of hundred thousand parr into a river where wild parr exist in far greater numbers makes no sense at all. Stocked salmon contribute 2-7% of the returning salmon run. You really wouldn't notice that if Kielder ever stopped stocking.

    Kielder hatchery also stocks salmon parr into kielder burn and transports the smolts to below the dam. This is a better idea but even so, it is only likely to contribute a small number of returning salmon to the total.

    I read an interesting article this morning - kielder hatchery also breeds and stocks fresh water mussels into the North Tyne because they are at risk of extinction in the river. Apparently the freshwater mussel can live to over 100years but in the North Tyne there are no mussels younger than 40-50 years old.
    Which means that 40-50 years ago, something happened which meant that freshwater mussels are not successfully breeding in the North Tyne.

    Kielder dam opened 40 years ago.
    Kielder forest - 250 square miles of plantation was created from the 20's to the 1960's - plenty enough time to change the river to affect freshwater mussels.
    Also a good shout for major changes around that time - farming practices.

    All we ever seem to do is patch up the impacts of industrial man on nature. I have always found it strange that the "solution" to solving these problems is always more interference by man. Rarely does that work out.

    Kielder forest was an attempt to create a national strategic store of timber for the UK. Now it serves no purpose.
    Kielder dam was built to provide water and energy for the heavy industries of the north east. Mmmmhh. Different times today, it's time someone made some different decisions. How long do our rivers need to suffer from afforestation, impoundment and farming practises before we actually do something?

  8. #118
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by razzer View Post
    Just one question for the doubters regarding restocking , now i might be wrong here but are there rivers in iceland that totally rely on a restocking programme to populate some rivers as salmon cant successfully breed because of the silt.
    The West Ranga and the East Ranga have very little spawning gravel because of a volcanic eruption in the 1980s. The river bed is mostly volcanic ash. Before the eruption they were both good salmon rivers. The decision was taken to stock them after it became clear that the volcanic eruption had made natural spawning on an adequate scale impossible and the cost of cleaning up the river beds was prohibitive.

    Each of the rivers has its own hatchery. Each river is stocked with smolts, not fry or parr. The stocking process is extremely sophisticated. Almost every pool on the two rivers has its own smolt release pen. A record is kept of where a hen fish was caught and her progeny are released from the smolt release pen nearest to where she was caught. The smolt release pen is only opened so as to release smolts when the smolts are ready to go to sea. No hanging around in river. The Icelanders shoot predators, including seals. This whole process is very expensive and paid for because fishing on the two rivers is very expensive - no association water, it is all private and managed by one entity per river. The two rivers are relatively short and contain natural barriers which enable the management companies to control the migration of fish up river.

    I doubt this is a model for a river like the Tyne.

  9. #119
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    North Tyne
    Posts
    601

    Default

    How is the north Tyne sustainable of natural spawning when half its head waters have been cut off!
    One thing Iíve noticed over the last 5 years alone is parr numbers have dropped.
    The north Tyne is extremely lucky as well that most of the forestry is done by the forestry commission who owns a lot of the land around a few of its main sources, they are putting a lot of work in to myre restoration ,regen clearing around burns whilst most other enterprises donít care and will plant and harvest with in to water courses with out a thought , I think itís biggest bonus is itís basically shut off from man.
    Agriculture on the other hand in the north Tyne valley needs a rethink itís changing and not for the better for sure and operations like tillhil and euro forest need fining when they break or ignore guidelines.
    Personally I always thought like most water courses that the horrific organochlorines and phosphates on sheep dip that where made compulsory in 1976 where largely responsible for a lot of damage to the muscles and insect life in rivers and streams all over.
    Last edited by Mattytree; 18-02-2020 at 10:13 AM.

  10. #120
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    271

    Default

    Aye Mattytree, there you have it. Without our interference; ...unrestrained fishing/netting of salmon and its feed, mining, inorganic and industrial farming/forestry , urban discharge ( clean but still Mr Muscle flavoured ) and abstraction, the fish would be abundant. Abundant as the river, seas and currents permit.
    Simple so.

Page 12 of 20 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •