More on Hybrids

[Ron Clay]

It is common knowledge that last weeks Angling Times on page 3 was the picture of a 3 lb roach/bream hybrid taken from Linch Hill in Oxon. The caption claimed it was a roach. Both myself, Graham and several members of this web site have sent Emails/letters to AT pointing out this error and on the day of publication too. Yesterday's Angling Times contained no apology for their mistake, which I find rather strange.
What we do see however is a photograph and report of a "fifty pound pike". Anyone reading this report will realise what a complete load of b----ks it is.
This begs the question - is angling journalism decending into another abyss. Since Richard Lee became Editor about a year ago, AT has improved in its content by leaps and bounds, having shaken off the dark influence of Kelly and Higginbottom. I hope these two recent cock ups are not a sign that this paper is about to decend to the depths again.

 

[Paul Williams]

It is going to be difficult for them to do without loosing face, these "roach" have won a lot of prizes!! but i for one will hold them in far higher esteem if they admit an error of judgment has been made.
On a more serious note, these fish a tremendous fish and the guy's who origanally started the ball rolling deserve a lot of credit, but it does make me wonder if we can ever be sure we have a true roach (or rudd) again !! now that to me is a frightening thought!!

 

[GrahamM]

What concerns me is that this thread hasn't been the subject of more discussion. Apart from Ron and Paul it's almost as though nobody is bothered that so many of the biggest roach(?) caught recently from one particular fishery by so many anglers may not be roach at all.

Are we frightened of knowing the truth? Or has there been so much doubt thrown on so many roach in recent years we're just fed up of hearing about it and most of us don't care one way or the other?

I know if I was catching big roach I'd want to know if they were genuine or not, and I'm surprised that Angling Times appears not to be bothered.

In no way does this make the captors of the roach(?) any better or worse as anglers, just that the true parentage and therefore the value of the fish, is in doubt.

I reckon it's important we know for historical reasons, never mind anything else.

 

[Chris Bishop]

I'll stick my neck out and say I doubt most of today's AT readers really care.

 

[Carp Angler]

That's probably true Chris.
They only seem to care about that weeks issue, then all the attention is on next weeks captures/issue.
They seem to gloss over any history/facts/sacrifice etc etc, it's
look at the picture
look at the weight
forgotten
next picture

Next weeks issue comes along and last weeks is long forgotten.....

Are we rubbishing these fish because they are lake and not river roach?
I know the pictures clearly show that they are hybrids but would we have even scrutinised them if they were from the Avon?

 

[Ron Clay]

Because of my singular interest in roach, (they are my favourite species) I tend to scrutinise all pictures of roach in the angling press as well as in books. I certainly do not wish to rubbish stillwater roach. Most of my best have come from stillwaters. Of the many roach I have seen photographed from the Hants Avon, Dorset Stour etc, only one has to my eyes been supect. I have caught many roach bream and roach rudd hybrids in my life and I never run them down. They are the most beautiful fish. Roach bream hybrids fight harder than tench size for size and bream rudd hybrids are truly exquisite fish. But lets identify them and call them what they should be called.

 

[GrahamM]

I've just read back through the whole of this thread to see where I'd missed someone 'rubbishing' these fish. And I can't find anything to suggest that.

Like Ron, and most of the anglers I fish with in Ireland, where we've caught hundreds of hybrids, I love them. They really do fight harder than either of their true parents. They're great fish. In fact I held (and maybe I still do) the unofficial (obviously) British record for a roach x bream hybrid with a fish of over 8lb.

But just like I want to know if I've caught a small chub or a gigantic dace, I also want to know if I've caught a roach, a bream, or a hybrid of the two. My interest is no less because the species may be difficult to identify.

As for the centre of interest apparently being on lake roach rather than river roach, this is due to the fact that hybridisation is far more likely to occur in stillwater fish than river fish. Without going into great detail it's the nature of spawning in the two environments (current, spawning beds, etc) that makes the difference. This is why so few hybrids are found in rivers, and what few are found are probably a result of escapee livebaits and stock fish.

 

[Carp Angler]

My mistake and poor choice of words.

I was going to suggest the spawning areas for rivers against lake etc but was unsure of my facts.

 

[Chris Bishop]

Presumably these are close to areas where lacklustre fishing journalism breeds.

 

[Paul Williams]

Graham, i have caught plenty of roach/bream hybrids from the Severn and was just about to disagree with you on river hybrids but then something dawned on me! they have all come from the lower Severn,it crossed my mind that the conditions of the lower reaches offer the opportunity for hybridisation, i certainly can't remember catching many (if any) on the middle or upper reaches.

 

[GrahamM]

My fault, I should have pointed out that I meant rivers with a decent flow. I've caught loads of hybrids from the Shannon and Inny, and other slow-flowing rivers.

 

[DAVE COOPER]

Paul Williams is worried about whether many pure roach still exist in stillwaters. His point is that if hybrids can breed it may be possible that a good proportion of roach have a small part bream parentage, say 3rd or 4th generation plus. Could it then be that they are indistinguishable from true roach but have the growth factor of a bream?

Indeed a worrying thought, but personally I still think hybrids are accidental from mixed spawning areas and are a small percentage when measured against the true strain.

 

[FERGAL SCULLY]

Hybrids are always a puzzeling part of angling. There is still scientific debate as to wether hybrids are sterile or not. If all hybrids were fertile it would not take long for a water with the right conditions to become totally populated by hybrids. But the thinking today is that most are sterile but some are fertile. I once worked with the central fisheries board here in Ireland surveying fish stocks on the canals. Hybrid identification was a big part of my job. Ireland is particularly suitable for the production of hybrids but there are still more of the true species than hybrids. The only hybrid that really caused us any problems were roach/rudd which look alot like true rudd. As with all hybrids when you see the true parent fish the differences are obvious. The only true way to tell is by genetics or throat teeth examination but an experienced angler can tell straight away usually. If anyone has any doubts about roach rudd bream or any of there hybrids send me a picture and I'll stick my oar in. Make sure the pics are good quality close up for scale counts ( fin ray counts if possible ). Any way I don't think there is any danger of true roach dying out as this would have happened along time ago if it were possible.

 

[Ron Clay]

Many thanks to your most useful contribution to this thread Fergal. I am sure most of us agree with what you say. Did you see the 3 pound "roach" in Angling Times about 3 weeks ago? If you did I would welcome your comments?
Again not a peep out of Anging Times this morning on this matter!!

 

[GrahamM]

Yes, welcome to FISHINGmagic Fergal, long time no hear from you!

I'd also like to hear what you think about the 'roach' in Angling Times. It was on page 3 of the 24 January issue.

If you can't get hold of a copy let me know and I'll scan the picture and e-mail it to you.

 

[Paul Williams]

Alan Wilson has won the AM fox monthly award with the very roach we are discussing, he is now in with a chance of the ?3000 jackpot, strange thing is it is alleged he to once discribed them as possible hybrids!!
The fish in AT is wide open to debate, there is therefore reason to question the other big fish from the water, i'm sure that it possible for a hybrid to have the outward appearance of a true roach but have part of the growth gene of a bream.
I have no problem with Alan, but if there is the slightest possibility that they are not true roach then in my opinion the prizes should go elsewhere.

 

[Philip Inzani]

I have been following this thread with interest and one point that concerns me is that once a water throws up a confirmed Hybrid it does seem to get labelled as a Hybrid venue from then on and many following captures seem to be dismissed too easily. Bure Valley and Hollowell Reservoir spring to mind here (I think its those two but its been a while) I saw many pictures of some great fish in from those lakes and the mags always seem to report them by saying something like "Hybrid Venue Bure Valley threw up this fish for Mr X" My point is that what if some of those fish where true Roach ? In the case of Roach/Rudd I defy anyone to be able to positively i.d every fish by a picture in a mag alone...maybe a close up of the fins would help but even then I think there is an overlap in the number of rays for Roach/rudd (someone?s bound to pull me up on that!)
I thinks Dave made a great point that if a fish is 3rd or 4th generation hybrid then I think it would be almost impossible to tell....but then in that case does it really matter?

 

[GrahamM]

My view is that when we discover that a venue produces hybrids as well as true roach then we should be extra vigilant about the identification.

There does of course come a point where scale and fin ray counts overlap leaving the ID in doubt, and then the only true way of identifying the fish is to kill it and examine the pharyngeal teeth. And that's not on.

However, the picture that started all this leaves us in no doubt. There is no overlap in the anal fin ray count. That fish has three or more rays more than a roach should have.

It is that that I object to. Choosing to ignore an obvious hybrid and calling it a roach.

 

[Paul Williams]

Philip, i remember well both the situations you mention and you are right there were some fantastic fish but at least they caused some debate in the press at the time.
In answer to your question "does it matter" then if the fish are caught purely for pleasure then no it doesn't matter one little bit...but if a hybrid at say 3lb 12oz was to win ?3000 as a roach, and a true roach of 3lb 10oz won nothing would that matter?
From my own point of view it matters to me personally because roach are one of my favourite fish and i would want to know one way or the other, as far as is reasonably possible of course! and without debate that one picture in AT puts plenty of doubt in my mind at the moment as far as Linch hill fish are concerned.
I wish this wasn't the case because as you know i fish the water, bet if i pull out one at 4lb 5oz the disscussion will hot up then!

 

[Philip Inzani]

Guys, Guys....not sure you understand what I am saying or I am not explaining it correctly
Paul, I agree 100% with you it makes BIG difference if a hybrid at 3.12 wins 3grand while a true 3.10 wins nothing not to mention the efforts of the angler in question.
What I was meaning was that if a fish is a 4th or 5th gneeration hybrid what then? I think it would be very very difficult (impossible?) to tell such a fish from a true one. In fact how do we not know that all the fish we are catching are not hybrids from a distant stocking ? I guess that if a fish is 4th 5th 6th or even 483rd generation hybrid
then is it not still a hybrid ? My question was at what point does it no longer matter or does it always matter?

I have a feeling that alot more fish than we imagine are not true "pedigrees" if you take it to the N'th degree.

What do you think ?