Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  14
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22
  1. #1

    Default Born To Be Caught: Vulnerability to being angled a Heritable Trait

    We've had this conservation here before more than once with some expressing theyd considered the possibility with others expressing the notion as hogwash.

    Here is an article in reference to a 20-year study, albeit done on bass rather than salmon, that seems to point to an individual fish's aptitude to take a lure as being hereditary.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0414153532.htm

    Anyway, I just found it interesting. As I said, the notion that salmon are less likely to take these days in the British Isles simply on account of the 'taking genetics' being removed from the gene pool in the past 200 years of 'sport fishing' is one thats been brought up in the past. Whereas netting does not discriminate, the days of yore when everything caught was whacked may (or may not) have removed these 'favorable' genes (from the anglers perspective, not so much the fishes) from the gene pool.

    Maybe salmon really are harder to catch these days than in days past?

    Anyway...



    This is not a topic advocating catch and release. Just an FYI because, you know, its bound to go there....
    Last edited by Heero; 10-08-2015 at 11:52 PM.
    Heero just pawn in game of life.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Stirling
    Posts
    6,377

    Default

    I firmly believe that to be the case.
    Even on the Dee , the fish must be ****** off by being hauled around a pool 2 or 3 times each season.
    Respect My Authorita!!

  3. #3

    Default

    Those poor, poor Dee fish.

    On the one hand, the more 'takers' removed, the better off the remaining fish and their offspring will be in the future. Not as susceptible to being harassed by fellas wanting to jab em in the face to take em fer a ride, possibly resulting in either death (intentional OR Incidental) or failed spawning, would certainly be a good adaptation for the species.

    Now there's a conservation measure to push for -- kill the ones stupid enough to bite so those smart enough not to can inherit the seas. Ha ha.
    Last edited by Heero; 11-08-2015 at 12:03 AM.
    Heero just pawn in game of life.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Trim, Co. Meath
    Posts
    397

    Default

    Fascinating. Thanks for sharing.

    Ian

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by keirstream View Post
    I firmly believe that to be the case.
    Even on the Dee , the fish must be ****** off by being hauled around a pool 2 or 3 times each season.
    Me too.

    But surely on the Dee, the taking gene is not being removed due to catch and release, and the memory of minor oral surgery can't be passed from parents to eggs

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Trim, Co. Meath
    Posts
    397

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heero View Post
    Those poor, poor Dee fish.

    On the one hand, the more 'takers' removed, the better off the remaining fish and their offspring will be in the future. Not as susceptible to being harassed by fellas wanting to jab em in the face to take em fer a ride, possibly resulting in either death (intentional OR Incidental) or failed spawning, would certainly be a good adaptation for the species.

    Now there's a conservation measure to push for -- kill the ones stupid enough to bite so those smart enough not to can inherit the seas. Ha ha.
    Hmm. Not really. In this study on freshwater Bass, it would appear that the less aggressive were less likely to be caught, BUT the more aggressive were more likely to protect the juveniles... Also, the "Trophy" ie largest fish were killed.. So perhaps not a great indicator for species survival.
    In relation to taking fish and non-taking fish, in Atlantic Salmon, I am of the opinion that apart from early season springers (who are aggressive animals) that the low angling returns experienced recently are because the holding pools don't reach a "critical mass" of fish. We all understand that when a lot of fish are packed in a pool, they can become eminently catchable, due to aggression and competition for lies. Imagine this. After a hard weeks work, you saunter into your local, for a quick pint before dinner. Dave the barman is there, nods at you to signal the pouring of your usual. The two old boys in the corner playing brag give you a big smile, acknowledging your existence, and routine. Then imagine, the next evening, you saunter in, your favourite stool by the telly is taken by a 6'2" tranny, a load of chavs are drinking lager and SITTING IN YOUR STOOL, and the local ISIS brigade are chanting to heaven, or whatever they do....
    In which situation, if you were a Salmon, would you burst a fly?

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silver Daddy View Post
    Hmm. Not really. In this study on freshwater Bass, it would appear that the less aggressive were less likely to be caught, BUT the more aggressive were more likely to protect the juveniles... Also, the "Trophy" ie largest fish were killed.. So perhaps not a great indicator for species survival.
    In relation to taking fish and non-taking fish, in Atlantic Salmon, I am of the opinion that apart from early season springers (who are aggressive animals) that the low angling returns experienced recently are because the holding pools don't reach a "critical mass" of fish. We all understand that when a lot of fish are packed in a pool, they can become eminently catchable, due to aggression and competition for lies. Imagine this. After a hard weeks work, you saunter into your local, for a quick pint before dinner. Dave the barman is there, nods at you to signal the pouring of your usual. The two old boys in the corner playing brag give you a big smile, acknowledging your existence, and routine. Then imagine, the next evening, you saunter in, your favourite stool by the telly is taken by a 6'2" tranny, a load of chavs are drinking lager and SITTING IN YOUR STOOL, and the local ISIS brigade are chanting to heaven, or whatever they do....
    In which situation, if you were a Salmon, would you burst a fly?
    I'd probably go home, open a nice Chianti and finish off with a couple of Jameson's best

  8. #8

    Default

    Point taken, Silver Daddy.

    Your story reminds me of a time I was in some pub in northwest Ireland in some tiny village. Im looking at a map here and it might be Meenlaragh, but the location is unimportant.

    So there I am, having some pints with a Welshman and an Irishman amongst a...what would you call a group of Irish?..anyway, a bunch of other Irishmen chatting and laughing in what can only be described as Gaenglish, a blend of Gaelic and English, when in walks a female.

    It was like the abrupt stop of a record. You know that sound? The one meant to mark an awkward, unintended interruption. Maybe there is a proper name for that sound, but, regardless, never was the a more appropriate moment for it than this.



    So maybe its a little like that? Maybe there are a bunch of male salmon setting about in a pool when in swims a female.

    I could totally see that as a taking moment for a bunch of them. Without a doubt.

    Heero just pawn in game of life.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Trim, Co. Meath
    Posts
    397

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paddymc View Post
    I'd probably go home, open a nice Chianti and finish off with a couple of Jameson's best
    Paddy, I'd love to think I would handle that situation as you would.. But after 50 years on this planet, I still haven't learned, and I'd surely burst that fly...
    It's like the tale of the Scorpion and the frog.. It's my nature. And probably the greatest thing we can learn, is to accept ourselves, as we are.. Even if a bit of a dick-head!

    Ian

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Solihull
    Posts
    4,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heero View Post
    As I said, the notion that salmon are less likely to take these days in the British Isles simply on account of the 'taking genetics' being removed from the gene pool in the past 200 years of 'sport fishing' is one thats been brought up in the past. Whereas netting does not discriminate, the days of yore when everything caught was whacked may (or may not) have removed these 'favorable' genes (from the anglers perspective, not so much the fishes) from the gene pool.
    Or has C&R removed the taking gene. Maybe even a dumb salmon realises after being hauled a couple of times to fresh air, and maybe photographed to death, that a bunch of feathers and hair with a big lump of steel hanging out it's a**e ain't a good thing to nibble on.

    No C&R rant just something to consider.
    Regards Gary
    Fishing for 60 years and am still trying to understand why I do it, but I love misunderstandings

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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