River wear 2021

tynelobster

Active member
Messages
904
Reaction score
88
Location
Banks of the Tyne
Greenlaner is right, it's still a cracking river to fish, its just the trout fishing "isn't as good as it was many years ago".

So don't sell your gear, get down for the trout with Czech Nymphing tackle or heavy weighted nymphs swung deep and across.

I whinged on to an old guy about eight to ten years ago about the scarcity of fish and he pretty much bollocked me. He said I need to get my fly down underneath the parr. The fly life has changed but the big trout are still there in numbers. He fished with 2 or 3 weighted nymphs, as deep as possible and according to him he caught his fair share of trout to 2lb+ every year.

I rarely see a big trout rise these days but they are there. Rarely a year goes by when I don't catch the odd big trout or two while fishing for sea trout or salmon. I guess the old guy was right but tbh my time is so scarce I rarely get chance to spend a day trout fishing these days and test out what he says.

I've heard a couple of theories about the non rising trout...
1 midges dominate due to a combination of silt and pollution. If you get to the river and there are clouds of midges it's too late; the trout are already hiding up digesting their food.
2 more predators means those trout, parr etc in the best and safest lies don't fall foul of febs. It may just be we are fishing for even more wary fish than 30 yrs ago. The fish that 30 years ago we didn't even know existed because we were all busy fishing for the confident risers at the surface..
These two would also explain why we don't see many small fish but they seem to be still there in reasonable numbers.
Turned over a few stones in the bit I have joined and nothing at all but shrimp. No caddis no nymphs just shrimp.
 

SteveG

Well-known member
Messages
383
Reaction score
368
I would take the doom and gloom on this river wear thread with a pinch of salt, individual anglers on the river caught in excess of 60 fish each last season, I personally know one angler who hooked 17 fish and landed 13 in a four hour session, so it can't be as bad as some would want people to believe
Well said

I fished at the weekend saw plenty of minnows as I was wading and caught a few grayling and trout but not on the fly tho, saw a few fish rising but not reliably enough to make me fancy the fly gear yet for them
 

Lynnzer

Member
Messages
82
Reaction score
61
The EA stocked it with Grayling some years back, but slightly further upstream from the confluence with the Wear if i remember correctly.
Yeah I read the Google search results of stocking the local rivers and the EA is pretty active in trying to introduce fish to rivers and streams where they may never have even been in the 1st place. Take Langley Beck at Staindrop for instance. I remember tickling small brownies there when I was going to school in Barnard Castle, and I'm 75 coming up so you can work that out for yourself.
Anyway trout and bullheads were all that inhabited the beck. Not even perch from Raby Castle moat managed to work their way over the half mile between them.
It never had grayling in it but that's what the EA put in 4 years ago.
What springs to mind is we know that trout introduced into the rivers are triploid, but is that the same for the grayling and other species I wonder. If not then why the hell are trout treated differently because we need breeding fish not a river full of eunuchs especially when there are so many otters, cormorants, goosanders and herons in the river system
__________________________________________________
Ah, I found the answer in another search
 
Last edited:

Lynnzer

Member
Messages
82
Reaction score
61
Thanks so much for that mate. Now to find out about fish stocks and fishing access if possible.
Visit the adjacent farms with a bottle of wine. Say you would love to to take your grandson, young son or some other worthy person or disabled family member to fish a safe place where there's no-one to bother you both.
 

dave1959

Active member
Messages
339
Reaction score
108
Location
Middlesbrough North Yorkshire
Yeah I read the Google search results of stocking the local rivers and the EA is pretty active in trying to introduce fish to rivers and streams where they may never have even been in the 1st place. Take Langley Beck at Staindrop for instance. I remember tickling small brownies there when I was going to school in Barnard Castle, and I'm 75 coming up so you can work that out for yourself.
Anyway trout and bullheads were all that inhabited the beck. Not even perch from Raby Castle moat managed to work their way over the half mile between them.
It never had grayling in it but that's what the EA put in 4 years ago.
What springs to mind is we know that trout introduced into the rivers are triploid, but is that the same for the grayling and other species I wonder. If not then why the hell are trout treated differently because we need breeding fish not a river full of eunuchs especially when there are so many otters, cormorants, goosanders and herons in the river system
__________________________________________________
Ah, I found the answer in another search
Thats a good question regarding grayling as its some thing ive never even thought about regarding genetics with those fish. I'll message the EA to try and find out the answer.
 

teesfisher

Member
Messages
51
Reaction score
29
Yeah I read the Google search results of stocking the local rivers and the EA is pretty active in trying to introduce fish to rivers and streams where they may never have even been in the 1st place. Take Langley Beck at Staindrop for instance. I remember tickling small brownies there when I was going to school in Barnard Castle, and I'm 75 coming up so you can work that out for yourself.
Anyway trout and bullheads were all that inhabited the beck. Not even perch from Raby Castle moat managed to work their way over the half mile between them.
It never had grayling in it but that's what the EA put in 4 years ago.
What springs to mind is we know that trout introduced into the rivers are triploid, but is that the same for the grayling and other species I wonder. If not then why the hell are trout treated differently because we need breeding fish not a river full of eunuchs especially when there are so many otters, cormorants, goosanders and herons in the river system
__________________________________________________
Ah, I found the answer in another search
I have caught grayling (and perch) in the lower reaches of Langley back as far back as 1991.
 

Lynnzer

Member
Messages
82
Reaction score
61
Thats a good question regarding grayling as its some thing ive never even thought about regarding genetics with those fish. I'll message the EA to try and find out the answer.
I think some serious questions should be asked. The whole EA report on triploids is entirely skewed. it reads like they knew the answer before they began researching so just picked up the evidence to suit themselves.
They cannot begin to say that the genetic makeup would be compromised only in relation to trout, whichever species it is, ie rainbow, brownie, brook etc.

They go into depth about the variation from parts of the UK and Ireland and how such variations occurred but similarities MUST be applied to other fish species, most especially grayling.
To my simple mind the variations, albeit supposedly brought about by the action of natural selection, aren't sufficient to give credence to the introduction of triploids.

They must get the fish that they farm from some common source that is diploid oriented. If that's the case, which surely it must be unless the EA has found a way to mass clone fish, then the parent fish already have the characteristics of wild river fish but may have been denied the ability to learn how to live in a river with all the guile and learnt knowledge that a wild fish has picked up since hatching and developed from a fry.

You put a wild trout fry alongside a triploid fry and drop them into a stream. The wildie won't have learnt anything yet, and I really doubt that the traits of survival can be carried genetically from it's parents. It's a fry for goodness sake and has to learn as it goes along just the same as the triploid. The natural selection argument applies equally to both. I wonder if the EA has made them take part in a written test to see which has the characteristics of a smart river bred fish. I think it's a load of twaddle that triploids aren't as smart so allowing them to cross with wildies is going to destroy the genetic makeup of the species. I mean, if they do breed then that's evidence that they are smart enough to survive long enough to do so.

Now, I don't know the answer to this but I suspect that triploids still have the natural traits of breeding behaviour. They probably still swim up to the redds each year and try their luck. Such things as breeding behaviour can't really be controlled by making them infertile surely. I mean if you give a man the snip he's still going to go out and spread the now infertile sperm. If that is true of triploid fish it means that they are taking part in activity that will impact the wild fish. They probably lay eggs to triploids alongside them with an expectation that they will hatch. So they lay their eggs, they divest themselves of a breeding years worth of future wild fish and lose the chance to lay more eggs to a true male wild trout. Or does the EA think that a wild hen trout is competent enough to tell the difference?

If crossbreeding was to occur and the result was that a poor strain of fish resulted from it then only the smartest would survive to adulthood which is the way of the wild trout anyway. Natural selection still goes on and the winners are those fish that develop to live long lives which must be good for the species.

In any case, and despite the answers the EA will no doubt provide, there is no damn reason at all that they should apply triploiding to only trout. Their arguments as to why it's necessary apply equally to all other species yet they don't say a word about that. It seems that they are deliberately holding back on us yet allow the coarse fishermen to benefit from diploid stocking of their target species. Natural selection doesn't matter for them does it not?

I do not have any homophobic intent or finger pointing here but you take couples who live together, whether lesbian, gay or anyone who simply cannot reproduce between themselves, and yet they still can breed with heterosexuals. Their children, aren't to my knowledge, more predisposed to being gay or lesbian. The kids live and learn like all other kids and develop into adulthood which may be entirely different from parental expectations. So why are fish different?

Why would they do it anyway? Why stock triploids? Surely the best way to improve the stock of trout in any river system that have the capacity to live, learn and develop the necessary survival skills is by placing and policing severe strict controls on predation, pollution and other environmental factors such as making the habitat better with river banks planted to prevent erosion, and provide cover and especially a more robust policing of farm oriented dumping, leeching of animal waste and chemical control. Oh, and reverse the land drainage to allow natural wetlands to develop again and become natural sponges for severe rainfall, and of course to build up the water table which must be falling every year that goes by. Then you'll see those streams that simply disappear in the summer start to revive and strengthen the overall river system with necessary diversity of habitat.

I ain't a scientist but I do have an active and inquisitive mind and don't take the word of anyone as gospel without some application of what I think are common-sense questions.

I'm dropping back to add another thing on wetlands. I recently, like last week, read a report that deforestation is benefitting the environment where the land is being allowed to become a swamp. Wetlands are massively more useful as carbon collectors than trees. Trees don't use as much carbon and the life of a tree is nowhere near as long as a wetland that has been allowed to develop properly. Also when vegetation of any sort dies it releases that carbon back into the atmosphere. A wetland just keeps it. Like forever. Or at least until the land has drainage put in to dry it out.
Of course total and uncontrolled deforestation for the sake of land grabbing or timber supply doesn't come into the equation.
 
Last edited:

Walleye

Well-known member
Messages
3,187
Reaction score
2,121
I think some serious questions should be asked. The whole EA report on triploids is entirely skewed. it reads like they knew the answer before they began researching so just picked up the evidence to suit themselves.
They cannot begin to say that the genetic makeup would be compromised only in relation to trout, whichever species it is, ie rainbow, brownie, brook etc.

They go into depth about the variation from parts of the UK and Ireland and how such variations occurred but similarities MUST be applied to other fish species, most especially grayling.
To my simple mind the variations, albeit supposedly brought about by the action of natural selection, aren't sufficient to give credence to the introduction of triploids.

They must get the fish that they farm from some common source that is diploid oriented. If that's the case, which surely it must be unless the EA has found a way to mass clone fish, then the parent fish already have the characteristics of wild river fish but may have been denied the ability to learn how to live in a river with all the guile and learnt knowledge that a wild fish has picked up since hatching and developed from a fry.

You put a wild trout fry alongside a triploid fry and drop them into a stream. The wildie won't have learnt anything yet, and I really doubt that the traits of survival can be carried genetically from it's parents. It's a fry for goodness sake and has to learn as it goes along just the same as the triploid. The natural selection argument applies equally to both. I wonder if the EA has made them take part in a written test to see which has the characteristics of a smart river bred fish. I think it's a load of twaddle that triploids aren't as smart so allowing them to cross with wildies is going to destroy the genetic makeup of the species. I mean, if they do breed then that's evidence that they are smart enough to survive long enough to do so.

Now, I don't know the answer to this but I suspect that triploids still have the natural traits of breeding behaviour. They probably still swim up to the redds each year and try their luck. Such things as breeding behaviour can't really be controlled by making them infertile surely. I mean if you give a man the snip he's still going to go out and spread the now infertile sperm. If that is true of triploid fish it means that they are taking part in activity that will impact the wild fish. They probably lay eggs to triploids alongside them with an expectation that they will hatch. So they lay their eggs, they divest themselves of a breeding years worth of future wild fish and lose the chance to lay more eggs to a true male wild trout. Or does the EA think that a wild hen trout is competent enough to tell the difference?

If crossbreeding was to occur and the result was that a poor strain of fish resulted from it then only the smartest would survive to adulthood which is the way of the wild trout anyway. Natural selection still goes on and the winners are those fish that develop to live long lives which must be good for the species.

In any case, and despite the answers the EA will no doubt provide, there is no damn reason at all that they should apply triploiding to only trout. Their arguments as to why it's necessary apply equally to all other species yet they don't say a word about that. It seems that they are deliberately holding back on us yet allow the coarse fishermen to benefit from diploid stocking of their target species. Natural selection doesn't matter for them does it not?

I do not have any homophobic intent or finger pointing here but you take couples who live together, whether lesbian, gay or anyone who simply cannot reproduce between themselves, and yet they still can breed with heterosexuals. Their children, aren't to my knowledge, more predisposed to being gay or lesbian. The kids live and learn like all other kids and develop into adulthood which may be entirely different from parental expectations. So why are fish different?

Why would they do it anyway? Why stock triploids? Surely the best way to improve the stock of trout in any river system that have the capacity to live, learn and develop the necessary survival skills is by placing and policing severe strict controls on predation, pollution and other environmental factors such as making the habitat better with river banks planted to prevent erosion, and provide cover and especially a more robust policing of farm oriented dumping, leeching of animal waste and chemical control. Oh, and reverse the land drainage to allow swamps to develop again and become natural sponges for severe rainfall, and of course to build up the water table which must be falling every year that goes by. Then you'll see those streams that simply disappear in the summer start to revive and strengthen the overall river system with necessary diversity of habitat.

I ain't a scientist but I do have an active and inquisitive mind and don't take the word of anyone as gospel without some application of what I think are common-sense questions.

I'm dropping back to add another thing on swamps. I recently, like last week, read a report that deforestation is benefitting the environment where the land is being allowed to become a swamp. Swamps are massively more useful as carbon collectors than trees. Trees don't use as much carbon and the life of a tree is nowhere near as long as a swamp that has been allowed to develop properly. Also when vegetation of any sort dies it releases that carbon back into the atmosphere. A swamp just keeps it. Like forever.
Of course total and uncontrolled deforestation for the sake of land grabbing or timber supply doesn't come into the equation.
All good points.

The thing that gets me is that the EA insist on triploid stocking to protect the genetic integrity of native trout, but government environmental organisations happily allow fish farmers to wreck the genetic integrity of native salmon stocks in many rivers by allowing fertile Norwegian salmon to be farmed in Scotland knowing that there are hundreds of thousands of escapees every single year.
Salmon farmers could easily stock triploid salmon but it costs them more. So in the name of profit, native salmon stocks are sacrificed.
 

greenlaner2009

Well-known member
Messages
709
Reaction score
499
I think some serious questions should be asked. The whole EA report on triploids is entirely skewed. it reads like they knew the answer before they began researching so just picked up the evidence to suit themselves.
They cannot begin to say that the genetic makeup would be compromised only in relation to trout, whichever species it is, ie rainbow, brownie, brook etc.

They go into depth about the variation from parts of the UK and Ireland and how such variations occurred but similarities MUST be applied to other fish species, most especially grayling.
To my simple mind the variations, albeit supposedly brought about by the action of natural selection, aren't sufficient to give credence to the introduction of triploids.

They must get the fish that they farm from some common source that is diploid oriented. If that's the case, which surely it must be unless the EA has found a way to mass clone fish, then the parent fish already have the characteristics of wild river fish but may have been denied the ability to learn how to live in a river with all the guile and learnt knowledge that a wild fish has picked up since hatching and developed from a fry.

You put a wild trout fry alongside a triploid fry and drop them into a stream. The wildie won't have learnt anything yet, and I really doubt that the traits of survival can be carried genetically from it's parents. It's a fry for goodness sake and has to learn as it goes along just the same as the triploid. The natural selection argument applies equally to both. I wonder if the EA has made them take part in a written test to see which has the characteristics of a smart river bred fish. I think it's a load of twaddle that triploids aren't as smart so allowing them to cross with wildies is going to destroy the genetic makeup of the species. I mean, if they do breed then that's evidence that they are smart enough to survive long enough to do so.

Now, I don't know the answer to this but I suspect that triploids still have the natural traits of breeding behaviour. They probably still swim up to the redds each year and try their luck. Such things as breeding behaviour can't really be controlled by making them infertile surely. I mean if you give a man the snip he's still going to go out and spread the now infertile sperm. If that is true of triploid fish it means that they are taking part in activity that will impact the wild fish. They probably lay eggs to triploids alongside them with an expectation that they will hatch. So they lay their eggs, they divest themselves of a breeding years worth of future wild fish and lose the chance to lay more eggs to a true male wild trout. Or does the EA think that a wild hen trout is competent enough to tell the difference?

If crossbreeding was to occur and the result was that a poor strain of fish resulted from it then only the smartest would survive to adulthood which is the way of the wild trout anyway. Natural selection still goes on and the winners are those fish that develop to live long lives which must be good for the species.

In any case, and despite the answers the EA will no doubt provide, there is no damn reason at all that they should apply triploiding to only trout. Their arguments as to why it's necessary apply equally to all other species yet they don't say a word about that. It seems that they are deliberately holding back on us yet allow the coarse fishermen to benefit from diploid stocking of their target species. Natural selection doesn't matter for them does it not?

I do not have any homophobic intent or finger pointing here but you take couples who live together, whether lesbian, gay or anyone who simply cannot reproduce between themselves, and yet they still can breed with heterosexuals. Their children, aren't to my knowledge, more predisposed to being gay or lesbian. The kids live and learn like all other kids and develop into adulthood which may be entirely different from parental expectations. So why are fish different?

Why would they do it anyway? Why stock triploids? Surely the best way to improve the stock of trout in any river system that have the capacity to live, learn and develop the necessary survival skills is by placing and policing severe strict controls on predation, pollution and other environmental factors such as making the habitat better with river banks planted to prevent erosion, and provide cover and especially a more robust policing of farm oriented dumping, leeching of animal waste and chemical control. Oh, and reverse the land drainage to allow natural wetlands to develop again and become natural sponges for severe rainfall, and of course to build up the water table which must be falling every year that goes by. Then you'll see those streams that simply disappear in the summer start to revive and strengthen the overall river system with necessary diversity of habitat.

I ain't a scientist but I do have an active and inquisitive mind and don't take the word of anyone as gospel without some application of what I think are common-sense questions.

I'm dropping back to add another thing on wetlands. I recently, like last week, read a report that deforestation is benefitting the environment where the land is being allowed to become a swamp. Wetlands are massively more useful as carbon collectors than trees. Trees don't use as much carbon and the life of a tree is nowhere near as long as a wetland that has been allowed to develop properly. Also when vegetation of any sort dies it releases that carbon back into the atmosphere. A wetland just keeps it. Like forever. Or at least until the land has drainage put in to dry it out.
Of course total and uncontrolled deforestation for the sake of land grabbing or timber supply doesn't come into the equation.
If brown trout genetics are not really important and we use the river wear as an example when the brown trout fry go through the smelting process and head off down to the sea how would they know the migration route to their feeding grounds around the mouth of the balance ocean.
 

greenlaner2009

Well-known member
Messages
709
Reaction score
499
If brown trout genetics are not really important and we use the river wear as an example when the brown trout fry go through the smelting process and head off down to the sea how would they know the migration route to their feeding grounds around the mouth of the balance ocean.
Sorry mouth of the baltic ocean
 

Lynnzer

Member
Messages
82
Reaction score
61
If brown trout genetics are not really important and we use the river wear as an example when the brown trout fry go through the smelting process and head off down to the sea how would they know the migration route to their feeding grounds around the mouth of the balance ocean.
Call it natural selection again if you wish. They will either latch onto native fish and follow them, or those that manage to find their own way will determine whether that variation of species thrives. The oceans are changing very quickly too so natural feeding grounds are shifting which means that there has to be adaptation to take this into account.
The number of fish species around the equator has dropped massively due to climate change and many species have simply moved north. That fact alone means that feeding grounds will placed under extreme pressure.
We all know that the north-east and Scottish rivers are now getting Pacific Pink Salmon running through them and successfully breeding, although we are encouraged to kill whatever ones we catch. So much for natural selection there then? The smartest of the Pinks have already adapted but we want to stymie their success.
 

greenlaner2009

Well-known member
Messages
709
Reaction score
499
Call it natural selection again if you wish. They will either latch onto native fish and follow them, or those that manage to find their own way will determine whether that variation of species thrives. The oceans are changing very quickly too so natural feeding grounds are shifting which means that there has to be adaptation to take this into account.
The number of fish species around the equator has dropped massively due to climate change and many species have simply moved north. That fact alone means that feeding grounds will placed under extreme pressure.
We all know that the north-east and Scottish rivers are now getting Pacific Pink Salmon running through them and successfully breeding, although we are encouraged to kill whatever ones we catch. So much for natural selection there then? The smartest of the Pinks have already adapted but we want to stymie their success.
Latch on to natives and follow them is pie in the sky. Genetics are vital for success. We have stocked for a hundred years and were still in decline, its time for a 25 year period of no stocking to see what happens
 

Auldghillie

Active member
Messages
303
Reaction score
204
Latch on to natives and follow them is pie in the sky. Genetics are vital for success. We have stocked for a hundred years and were still in decline, its time for a 25 year period of no stocking to see what happens
There’s merit in avoiding stocking with Parr now netting is decimated but what do you recommend when holes appear in catchments i.e. when a tributary is wiped out with pollution for instance, or extreme flood events as 2015/6 ?

Since most rivers stocks are drastically low anyway, stocking would appear to be just pinching wild fish from within a river system and converting their progeny to stupid hatchery fish. AG
 

Lynnzer

Member
Messages
82
Reaction score
61
Latch on to natives and follow them is pie in the sky. Genetics are vital for success. We have stocked for a hundred years and were still in decline, its time for a 25 year period of no stocking to see what happens
I get the point but disagree on the argument. As mentioned the whole oceanic decline is ongoing which will affect the ability of fish to follow genetic natural instinct. Their natural growth grounds will change rapidly so genetics would be to take them to places that can no longer sustain them? Fish soon learn to adapt. They will go where their food sources take them. After all, that's what sea trout already do. They are just brownies that have chosen, unwittingly perhaps, to travel to sea to find their own food source.
The decline is more to do with mans own destructive way of life.
I wonder? How many times a day do you flush the loo and send a stream of toilet duck liquid into the waterways?
How many dishwashers or washing machines run on nothing but water? They all have detergent of some sort that also finds its way into the waterways and consequently the sea. Most everything man does impacts the state of the rivers and oceans, including the massive amounts of plastic that finds its way into every species. It's already known that this contributes to infertility, not only in fish but in humans too. Like I say, the decline isn't a natural thing. It's man made and the tampering with a species genetic makeup to produce triploids hasn't been undertaken long enough to make the difference we all know has taken place over a couple of human generations at least.
 

Auldghillie

Active member
Messages
303
Reaction score
204
I get the point but disagree on the argument. As mentioned the whole oceanic decline is ongoing which will affect the ability of fish to follow genetic natural instinct. Their natural growth grounds will change rapidly so genetics would be to take them to places that can no longer sustain them? Fish soon learn to adapt. They will go where their food sources take them. After all, that's what sea trout already do. They are just brownies that have chosen, unwittingly perhaps, to travel to sea to find their own food source.
The decline is more to do with mans own destructive way of life.
I wonder? How many times a day do you flush the loo and send a stream of toilet duck liquid into the waterways?
How many dishwashers or washing machines run on nothing but water? They all have detergent of some sort that also finds its way into the waterways and consequently the sea. Most everything man does impacts the state of the rivers and oceans, including the massive amounts of plastic that finds its way into every species. It's already known that this contributes to infertility, not only in fish but in humans too. Like I say, the decline isn't a natural thing. It's man made and the tampering with a species genetic makeup to produce triploids hasn't been undertaken long enough to make the difference we all know has taken place over a couple of human generations at least.
I’m sorry but I find this all a bit wish-washy and disconnected.
 

BMiller

New member
Messages
14
Reaction score
6
I get the point but disagree on the argument. As mentioned the whole oceanic decline is ongoing which will affect the ability of fish to follow genetic natural instinct. Their natural growth grounds will change rapidly so genetics would be to take them to places that can no longer sustain them? Fish soon learn to adapt. They will go where their food sources take them. After all, that's what sea trout already do. They are just brownies that have chosen, unwittingly perhaps, to travel to sea to find their own food source.
The decline is more to do with mans own destructive way of life.
I wonder? How many times a day do you flush the loo and send a stream of toilet duck liquid into the waterways?
How many dishwashers or washing machines run on nothing but water? They all have detergent of some sort that also finds its way into the waterways and consequently the sea. Most everything man does impacts the state of the rivers and oceans, including the massive amounts of plastic that finds its way into every species. It's already known that this contributes to infertility, not only in fish but in humans too. Like I say, the decline isn't a natural thing. It's man made and the tampering with a species genetic makeup to produce triploids hasn't been undertaken long enough to make the difference we all know has taken place over a couple of human generations at least.
Sorry I disagree with the statement that browns chose to travel to sea to find a food source. Surely it is the other way round. Brown trout have historically found a food source in the river and choose not to go to sea. Ten thousand years ago NE England was covered in 100m of ice and as it melted and retreated rivers and lakes were populated by sea trout.
 

Auldghillie

Active member
Messages
303
Reaction score
204
Sorry I disagree with the statement that browns chose to travel to sea to find a food source. Surely it is the other way round. Brown trout have historically found a food source in the river and choose not to go to sea. Ten thousand years ago NE England was covered in 100m of ice and as it melted and retreated rivers and lakes were populated by sea trout.
Nice one Mr Miller.

Salmo trutta eggs can only survive at less than 3ppm salinity, if I recall correctly. I.e. Low salinity anyway.

Would this not suggest a trout, migratory or otherwise, is a freshwater fish adapted to salinity due to glaciation ? Also it appears that, in contrast to Salmo salar, full salinity is tolerated less well, especially at low temps - though there is contra expert opinion from Norway. E.G. I’ve never heard of a sea-trout being captured in the Greenland fishery, a stone’s throw from Iceland, which is renowned for its sea-trout. Plus sea-trout were not present originally in east-coast North American rivers.

Experiments at Scaliscro, Outer Hebrides, proved that when so-called river trout were starved they Became smolts. See AST Blue Book. I like this fit with sea-trout favouring tributaries as natal streams not always those in lower catchments, a theory held by some. AG
 
Last edited:

NEbody

Well-known member
Messages
1,576
Reaction score
396
Location
Northumberland
Can't disagree with you as it has transcended into something it wasn't intended to be.
One more addition though. A picture of what I consider to be a Pinkie running up-river on the Tyne.
Just for interest of course.

mature male pink salmon
1617959412489.jpeg


mature male Atlantic salmon
1617959613388.jpeg
 

Auldghillie

Active member
Messages
303
Reaction score
204
Specsavers here I come !!!
If you look at the Scaliscro issue then, if that work is correct, then it has direct implications for any Wear sea-trout decline. I do no know that river, sorry.

But anyone examining the Coquet sea-trout issues from Dunbar’s era and later stocking from Reivers Well Hatchery could conclude sea-trout recruitment might depend on an excessive brown trout population. Certainly the opposite link appears proven: importance of large female sea-trout to brown trout populations via vastly-increased egg-deposition. You seem correct on your trip loud issue therefore. I had not thus intended to go off your subject. AG
 

Scierra

Well-known member
Messages
226
Reaction score
305
Salmo trutta eggs can only survive at less than 3ppm salinity, if I recall correctly. I.e. Low salinity anyway.

3ppm is next to nowt ? If they can only survive less than 3parts per million ?, then what happens to all the road salt washed into many rivers and spawning streams , even at present this last cold spell roads are white with dry salt ?
 
Top