No It Hasn't Been "Photoshopped"

[preston96]

I can't comprehend this Paul? I guess it's perhaps a game anglers mentality towards their prey?
As I mentioned earlier, to me a fish is a fish regardless of species, I don't target game fish but unfortunately catch quite a lot when after roach and dace on my local river.
Is the reason for the suggestion of the cull of that particular fish because anglers pay to fish trout fisheries for food if so would it be OK in a catch and release venue?

I'm not having a go I just don't think the same way a few others have posted about fish, I have no issue with people fishing for the pot, for specialising in any one field of the sport but I just don't get the reaction to the large carp mentioned or the trout in the photo.

Rodney,
I know you are not having a go at me mate, in the same way i am not having a go at Neil, i have no objection to fish for the pot either, just as long as common sense prevails.

I find the fish that Neil started the thread with a sad reason to go fishing, that is only my opinion, they simply do not satisfy whatever triggers my desire to go fishing, if they satisfy others desires then thats ok but i hope that angling and what it has to offer is never measured by such fish.

If i were to choose a fish for the pot give me one decent wild grayling over Neils fish anyday, i would also prefer to catch a 2lb wild grayling in the suroundings that usually such fishing offers than what is basically a glorified stew pond in my eyes.

Neil, i respect you as angler, you are damn good, and i know that you will understand what i am saying, you may not agree with me but that is a different debate?

 

[tigger]

"rolls eyes back"

Ok captain

 

[Neil Maidment]

.... It has a genetic abnormality, probably due to improperly-administered heatshock of the ovum. You might as well fish for fancy goldfish.
From the website of what I'm guessing is the fishery in question "These crystal clear waters enable discerning anglers to stalk exceptional fish".
"No m'Lud, I wasn't kerbcrawling, I was merely being "discerning" in my choice of women".

Presumably you missed this bit!

"I stalked the fish for about two hours and finally tempted it from a reasonably difficult position under a tree. If I had had a good enough sight of it to see it's "condition", I would probably have left it alone. As it was, all I had to go on was a big shadow, slowly cruising a relatively small area, in about 10 feet of water."

A bit of science:

"There is no genetic modification. Genes have not been changed or manufactured. The number of chromosomes are increased because a set are not lost on fertilisation. The fertilised egg is left with three copies of genetic information rather than two. Two from the mother, and one from the father. Triploid fish grow and develop as normal. After all they have the same information within them as diploid fish. But when it comes to producing eggs for themselves, the three sets of information do not divide conveniently and so no viable eggs are produced by hen fish. Triploid males do not produce viable sperm."

(that was my learning quota for today)

In this case the process is adminstered via pressure vessels. The use of heat and/or chemical alternatives is becoming less frequent. With the exception of very few places, allegedly the Derbyshire Wye being one - don't know, never fished it, every rainbow swimming in this country has arrived via that route. Even where there are breeding rainbows, it seems they've probably arrived via hen/cock fish introductions that were supposedly triploid.

The process is also consistently applied when rearing browns to be introduced to dirty ditches or hallowed chalk streams. The resulting end product is designed to combat any chance of hybridisation with the native trout.

Some will argue this part of our fishing industry is light years ahead of its coarse fish counterpart.

Anyway, last I looked, it was a relatvely free country, and if I choose to fish such venues, then I will.

---------- Post added at 18:31 ---------- Previous post was at 18:18 ----------

....Neil, i respect you as angler, you are damn good, and i know that you will understand what i am saying, you may not agree with me but that is a different debate?

Yes Paul, no problem with that at all.

(I'll be attempting a bit of predator stuff next month - under guidance! I'll let you know how I get on)

 

[Rodney Wrestt]

No, freshwater fish body fluids are hypertonic in relation to the surrounding water. They have to expend energy constantly removing excess water from their bodies. This means that when unable to osmoregulate, they would normally absorb water across any semi-permeable membranes (which in a fish, is pretty much everywhere). So they swell.
No need to be an expert, it's just basic fish physiology.
Could always be a carp crossed with a telescope-eyed moor I suppose "rolls eyes back"

Ahhhhh, you're describing reverse osmosis? although there are MANY reasons fish will suffer from this not least parasite infestation and poor water quality, nitrite and nitrate levels or increased ammonia in the water is a common reason, Algae blooms or deteriorating leaves usually later in the year than this though.

You are right though a fish in this condition will not feed. but other symptoms are very obvious such as the scales standing out from the body and a build up of mucus. I haven't seen the photos of this carp, can anyone post them or a link?

---------- Post added at 20:21 ---------- Previous post was at 19:51 ----------

Rodney,
I know you are not having a go at me mate, in the same way i am not having a go at Neil, i have no objection to fish for the pot either, just as long as common sense prevails.

I find the fish that Neil started the thread with a sad reason to go fishing, that is only my opinion, they simply do not satisfy whatever triggers my desire to go fishing, if they satisfy others desires then thats ok but i hope that angling and what it has to offer is never measured by such fish.

If i were to choose a fish for the pot give me one decent wild grayling over Neils fish anyday, i would also prefer to catch a 2lb wild grayling in the suroundings that usually such fishing offers than what is basically a glorified stew pond in my eyes.

Neil, i respect you as angler, you are damn good, and i know that you will understand what i am saying, you may not agree with me but that is a different debate?

Ok Paul, thanks for clearing that up for me mate.

I had assumed it was personal choice (as is everything in angling). Not specifically this fish but the ethos/perception of what a trout should encapsulate in it's history through life from egg to pot is a life of powerful predation and survival, a body of sleek muscle and fluidity as nature intended rather than a fish created through human intervention, fed on a diet of pellet to disproportionate appearance then stocked for the anglers pleasure. As I mentioned earlier I don't target trout by choice but I would have thought if going to a fishery (is the term still put and take?) where lb for lb each week the fish are replaced, does it matter what they look like? surely people who fish these venues can't expect the stock to be of equivalent standard to the wild fish thriving in a river...... or am I off base here?

I do like to catch a grayling or two Paul, they are so full of life but I don't know if you find the same as me, I'd suggest they are a very fragile species, they take great care in making sure they are recovered before release. I have had quite a few go belly up in my keepnet, requiring some manual intervention before they can right themselves, I've had this fright a few times.

 

[slime monster]

I saw the photo of this fish , It is suffering from a disease called Pop eye not Dropsy

 

[Rodney Wrestt]

I saw the photo of this fish , It is suffering from a disease called Pop eye not Dropsy

Pop eye isn't a disease Slime, it's an indicator of another illness as is the raised scales I mentioned earlier.

 

[tortoise100]

I have kept and bred tropical fish for years and have never managed to make the eyes go back in after pop eye but then most fish die from what ever caused the pop eye anyway.
I did have a few that lived happy lives feeding as normal with big bulging eyes just like the carp in last weeks weekly's .
So in my view it will either be dead long before it gets to record size or it is perfectly fine and will just get into the record books for the wrong reason and make people look at record carp in a new way ,oh and shouldn't it be called pop eye from now on.
Great trout though so what if it is full of spore and looks a bit weird you often get the odd strange fish even on totally wild waters.

 

[slime monster]

Popeye Fish Disease


I have kept a few fish in my time Rodders

 

[Rodney Wrestt]

Popeye Fish Disease


I have kept a few fish in my time Rodders

If you think your fish have Popeye Fish Disease, go one step further and look for tiny dots that are white and may be fuzzy looking - This is probably Ich (Ichthyophthirius), a parasite which is rather common. This disease can be caused by poor water and is easily contracted by fish whose immune system is weak. If caught in time, it can be treated with medication that you buy in the pet store.

First paragraph mate, it's Ich (white spot) which is the Disease that manifests as individual white spots (as I mentioned, mucus build up) each spot is a parasite and it's this that causes the fishes immune system to lower, as I said, Pop Eye is a byproduct of another disease.

I also have kept fish for many years, tropical and cold water (Marine's too expensive )

 

[Ray Roberts]

I believe it's a disease that is easily treated with Olive Oil.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Grabs coat for a quick getaway.

 

[Paul H]

I believe it's a disease that is easily treated with Olive Oil.

Ha, ha. I liked it

-----------------------------------------

I can understand why some people might not like fishing for rainbows, but I'm a little unsure how unintentionally catching a spawn bound fish qualifies as deliberatley targetting a diseased freak of nature?

I'm also not sure how the fishery owner would identify a fish with the genetic potential to produce eggs prior to introducing it. Particularly if he is supplied with fish that by definition do not have that potential.

Or have I misunderstood something?

 

[captain carrott]

i'm all for people fishing for rainbows, if they are stocked into suitable waters.

unfortunately for them it's impossible for it to be a suitable water if it's outside north america.

 

[Neil Maidment]

Ha, ha. I liked it

-----------------------------------------

I can understand why some people might not like fishing for rainbows, but I'm a little unsure how unintentionally catching a spawn bound fish qualifies as deliberatley targetting a diseased freak of nature?

I'm also not sure how the fishery owner would identify a fish with the genetic potential to produce eggs prior to introducing it. Particularly if he is supplied with fish that by definition do not have that potential.

Or have I misunderstood something?

I've done a little more research, talking to fishery owners and informed anglers. The triploid process is obviously carried out on the egg and its impossible to tell if the resultant fish is triploid or diploid, certainly not at the fingerling stage. It seems the industry achieves amazingly close to 100% effectiveness. Even a small hatchery/fishery such as Avington produces many 10's of thousand each year with only a handful of "failures".

Of course there are mortalities all along the rearing process but the "failures" would only manifest themselves once they reach maturity and generally find the conditions to kick the process off. It is not unknown for those fish to reach that stage after stocking, hence, perhaps the very few breeding populations in this country.

For a fishery owner/manager who buys in his stock fish, it would be nigh on impossible to intercept that handful, even if that was desirable. For a fishery with its own hatchery (including those that buy in the eggs and rear their stock) it could be argued that they may be able to intercept, again if desirable, but even that might not work.

In the case of Avington, they specifically select their heavier fish to replace those taken by anglers. But this particular fish had all the hallmarks, including length, of a slightly heavier than normal stock fish, perhaps 9lb+. Those "stockies" are not specifically selected but are stocked en masse (although fairly small numbers - perhaps 70 to 100 every day).

Maybe this one was producing eggs (not viable eggs) in the stock pond, maybe not. Contrary to popular belief many stocked trout do not get caught within five minutes of stocking. There are a couple of recognisable leviathans in the lakes that are often the focus of my attention, one of them from last year. Perhaps this one had been in there for a while?

 

[rains]

I have caught the odd fish like that, and I certainly am not proud in having done so.

I feel all of us must re-appraise what we believe to be a specimen fish. Have any of you seen the huge carp many believe will be England's next "record".

The poor thing looks totally obscene, utterly hideous, and a travesty of what a true specimen fish should look like. It even has its eyes bursting out on stalks.

Come on guys, it's time for a re-think. Do you really want to catch such monstrosities. Is an obese, overweight, ugly ogre of a man, a perfect specimen of humanity?

i lmao at the last sentence