Rivers and there decline.

captainbarnacles · Oct 15, 2010

been doing a lot of thinking on the subject. To my mind in my early days rivers were fished regularly and much food supply was added and fish as well as thriveing on the food got used to the food source and good bags could be taken, Also fish could grow big on this food supply. But then came the great carp scene and to my mind crippled the rivers as more people went over to comercials and neglected rivers. Now to my mind if all the clubs started promoting there rivers and got more members fishing them they would again start to improve and thrive on the food introduced. All these fishing programs on the tv seem to be carp or lake orientated , companies hypeing up the carp market , so come on lets get clubs and kids fishing rivers again and perhaps we can get back some of what we had in our earlier fishng days. lets have all of your views on this, am i talking out the back of my head, have i got it all wrong or what. tight lines all, Chubber.

richiekelly · Oct 15, 2010

rivers will never return to what they used to be as long as cormarants,otters,polution,abstraction and god knows what else carry on feeding on/killing the rivers and what lives in them.

matt1960 · Oct 15, 2010

chubberbob said:
been doing a lot of thinking on the subject. To my mind in my early days rivers were fished regularly and much food supply was added and fish as well as thriveing on the food got used to the food source and good bags could be taken, Also fish could grow big on this food supply. But then came the great carp scene and to my mind crippled the rivers as more people went over to comercials and neglected rivers. Now to my mind if all the clubs started promoting there rivers and got more members fishing them they would again start to improve and thrive on the food introduced. All these fishing programs on the tv seem to be carp or lake orientated , companies hypeing up the carp market , so come on lets get clubs and kids fishing rivers again and perhaps we can get back some of what we had in our earlier fishng days. lets have all of your views on this, am i talking out the back of my head, have i got it all wrong or what. tight lines all, Chubber.

Although I am not saying you are wrong. I firmly believe its the natural food of the fish thats the most important, and habitat next important.
I cannot believe there is as much natural food in the rivers now as 30 years ago when I first started river fishing.
There may be dozens of reasons for this, like unnaturally stocked species that dont belong, to polution, to siltation, to dredging etc etc etc..
But its most likely mans interference that is to blame in some way.
Matt

alan whittington · Oct 15, 2010

the blanker said:
rivers will never return to what they used to be as long as cormarants,otters,polution,abstraction and god knows what else carry on feeding on/killing the rivers and what lives in them.

Dont forget the 70,000,000+ population pooping into them Blanker,with all our medication,there really shouldnt be a living thing in them.

Wobbly Face (As Per Ed) · Oct 15, 2010

Are rivers in decline?
There have been very favourable reports on increase in fish and weights on some rivers. Many rivers have been cleaned up and are now producing some good sport for the fishermen. Do we not also have programs on barbel fishing and all the feed that gets put in with baiting up for them? Same approach as in carp fishing. Yes cormorants and other fish eating birds such as merganzers are a problem along with otters in some areas. On the whole I think rivers are in pretty good shape. There is always room for improvement, especially with agricultural, industrial discharges and human waiste.

Ray Daywalker Clarke · Oct 15, 2010

The decline isn't just about Carp, Barbel IMO haven't helped either.

Plus the rivers are to clean, 30,40 years ago the rivers did have plenty of fish, put the cleaner rivers have killed off much of the natural food.

I remember when the rivers had a colour to them, you could still spot fish, but now the water is crystal clear, apart from when we have rain.

The rivers don't seem to hold the water as in years gone by. When it rained the rivers would rise a lot slower, and drop back down at their own pace.

Not now, rivers seem to just flood as soon as we have a drop of rain, and before you know it, it's all gone again. I can't see that helps in any way.

Sadly, I can't see the rivers returning to their former glory days.

matt1960 · Oct 15, 2010

Ray Daywalker Clarke said:
The decline isn't just about Carp, Barbel IMO haven't helped either.

Plus the rivers are to clean, 30,40 years ago the rivers did have plenty of fish, put the cleaner rivers have killed off much of the natural food.

I remember when the rivers had a colour to them, you could still spot fish, but now the water is crystal clear, apart from when we have rain.

The rivers don't seem to hold the water as in years gone by. When it rained the rivers would rise a lot slower, and drop back down at their own pace.

Not now, rivers seem to just flood as soon as we have a drop of rain, and before you know it, it's all gone again. I can't see that helps in any way.

Sadly, I can't see the rivers returning to their former glory days.

Yes, I think this is another good point.
What should be happening is that the rivers should be flooding regularly on a small scale, and the floodwater then should be seeping back gradually. But flood defence systems stop this happening and farming has seen drainage ditches cut near to the rivers and often running into rivers. This speeds up the floodwater run off.
If we stopped drainage ditches running into the river, the meadows around the river would become water meadows and then gradually release water back. This then helps drop some alluvium before it gets back into the river and helps protect the river from siltation. This is as nature intended.
Matt

tigger · Oct 15, 2010

Ray Daywalker Clarke said:
Plus the rivers are to clean, 30,40 years ago the rivers did have plenty of fish, put the cleaner rivers have killed off much of the natural food.

Narrh, that's nonsense Ray. Clean water and creatures will thrive, dirty water will kill many forms of life including the type fish thrive on. Water can not be too clean !

Ray Daywalker Clarke · Oct 15, 2010

We will have to differ on that one Tigger.

Clean rivers have killed off natural food, and fish are known to now change sex, due to the amount of Chemicals going into our rivers.

The Lea around here is crsytal clear, and the fish stocks are very low, that wasn't the case years ago, when the water wasn't so clean and clear.

It's fine having clean water, but we don't want the chemicals,and thats the problem

tigger · Oct 15, 2010

Ray Daywalker Clarke said:
We will have to differ on that one Tigger.

Clean rivers have killed off natural food, and fish are known to now change sex, due to the amount of Chemicals going into our rivers.

The Lea around here is crsytal clear, and the fish stocks are very low, that wasn't the case years ago, when the water wasn't so clean and clear.

It's fine having clean water, but we don't want the chemicals,and thats the problem

Yeah Ray, fish are becoming infertile etc due to dirty water which is what I would call it when it's full of chemicals. Those same chemicals and other pollutants will affect other things besides the fish including the invertibrates and plant life which fish rely on to eat, for spawning and cover etc etc.
Clear water doesn't mean it's dirty just as coloured water doesn't mean it's clean. Rivers usually run clear or more clearly once the rush of fresh water from rain has gone through.

alan whittington · Oct 15, 2010

Wobbly Face (As Per Ed) said:
Are rivers in decline?
There have been very favourable reports on increase in fish and weights on some rivers. Many rivers have been cleaned up and are now producing some good sport for the fishermen. Do we not also have programs on barbel fishing and all the feed that gets put in with baiting up for them? Same approach as in carp fishing. Yes cormorants and other fish eating birds such as merganzers are a problem along with otters in some areas. On the whole I think rivers are in pretty good shape. There is always room for improvement, especially with agricultural, industrial discharges and human waiste.

WF,i think in your neck of the woods,there may have been an improvement(im not knowledgable on the N.West rivers),but in the south things are definitely worse,virtually across the board,there are some exceptions,to me it seems entwined with our rapidly growing population and considering how good it was its definitely worrying,within 50-60 miles of Ray at least three rivers are failing fast,the G.Ouse,Lea and Thames,i cant see them coming back because no one that could help seems interested in the slightest,clubs on the Thames above Oxford are about to,or have given up their stretches and i think the same will happen on the Ouse in the next 5 years.

Wobbly Face (As Per Ed) · Oct 15, 2010

Hi Alan, sounds like different areas, different agandas.
We've had climate change and cleaning agents for treating sewage causing problems. Culmination of many things. Perhaps the rain fall helps to dilute things up here also not as much nitrates, fertilisers and pesticide sused as most farming is dairy, beef and sheep. Plus the down turn of manufacturing industies so less toxics entering the water system. Perhaps if clubs could nag the E.A more then things may start happening. We all know about the antis so perhaps some string pulling being done, then we now have the economic climate to fight.

Ian Morgan · Oct 15, 2010

When I started reading this thread I have to say I strongly disagreed with the proposition that rivers are in decline.

But I wonder if (?Alan) is right - it depends on which part of the country you're talking about. I was brought up in Yorkshire - the urban part - and the rivers there are fantastic compared to 20-30 years ago - good examples of vast improvement would be the Calder in West Yorkshire and the Don in S. Yorks. The more northerly rivers in Yorkshire - Wharfe, Nidd, Ure, Swale etc. I would rate as having stayed much the same. Similarly, other rivers I've fished that run through (mostly) rural areas, e.g. the Severn and Wye have also remained in reasonable shape I think?

I suspect (but this is not based on personal experience), that the rivers that are doing badly are those that were in the past reasonably free from industrial pollution, but are now suffering from the effects of increasing population density. Such things as major abstraction, loss of natural habitat - building new homes on floodplains and hence needing flood control measures. These factors are particulalrly prevalent in the South east and home counties - which seems to be the area that people in this thread are complaining about.

Ian

michedw91 · Oct 15, 2010

cormorants are a bigger pain than otters in river terms i think cormorant shooting needs to make a come back no matter what the rspb say ive even herd roomers that the cormorants may cause a decline of kingfishers as the cormorants eat minnows and they can easily swallow whole a 2lb roach

Ray Daywalker Clarke · Oct 15, 2010

tigger said:
Yeah Ray, fish are becoming infertile etc due to dirty water which is what I would call it when it's full of chemicals. Those same chemicals and other pollutants will affect other things besides the fish including the invertibrates and plant life which fish rely on to eat, for spawning and cover etc etc.
Clear water doesn't mean it's dirty just as coloured water doesn't mean it's clean. Rivers usually run clear or more clearly once the rush of fresh water from rain has gone through.

Yes, but clean water has no chemicals, so our rivers cant be clean, they are clear to clear

---------- Post added at 23:31 ---------- Previous post was at 23:23 ----------

michedw91 said:
cormorants are a bigger pain than otters in river terms i think cormorant shooting needs to make a come back no matter what the rspb say ive even herd roomers that the cormorants may cause a decline of kingfishers as the cormorants eat minnows and they can easily swallow whole a 2lb roach

The reason the cormorants are doing fine on our rivers is simple.

Anglers are not fishing them as we used to. On the still waters here in the Lea Valley, the cormorants will take fish, but stay away when people are around. Yes some pits have a few hundred on them, but that's down to the valley parks not wanting them shot.

Go to the rivers and there isnt an angler around in numbers to put them off feeding, so the river suffer. IMO it should be shooting season all year round on the cormorants.

richiekelly · Oct 16, 2010

i have found that some stretches of the same river seem to contain more fish than others,i have fished the trent in some places and the river seemed devoid of fish while a mile downstream the river is full of fish of all species,i know this has always and will always be the case but it seems to have become exagurated over the last several years,the stretch without fish is hardly fished at all while the stretch with fish is fished everyday during the season winter included,other than this i cant think of any reason why there should be such a difference the stretch with fish is below a weir perhaps that is the reason but the good fishing extends far below the weir,some of the best barbel fishing is probably 3/4 of a mile below the weir,perhaps the fish are in the other stretch and its my angling skills that are at fault i dont know but maybe there is something in what chubberbob says about rivers not being fished after all with a stretch being fished on a regular basis its like the river is being baited up every day and fish being fish they wont move far from a free meal everyday, interestingly the stretch with fish never fishes well at the start of the season, its always a couple of weeks before it starts to fish well,another pointer to anglers baits being the reason why the fish are there?

Ray Daywalker Clarke · Oct 16, 2010

Blanker,

In all my yaers of fishing, i have always found rivers have swims and sections that seem to hold more fish, as do some still waters.

Today what fish there are in our rivers seem to be in sections, more so than years gone by, IMO that is, and going by the rivers I fish, There is one section of the Ouse i don't even bother going to anymore, because of the lack of fish.

Members who may have fished the walthamstow Res, will tell you just how good the fishing used to be on the Cooper Mill stream there. I haven't seen or heard of anyone having fish from there in years, but know doubt someone will have had something.
This section of river was outstanding, and a 30lb plus bag of good Roach in a morning session was the norm.

The death of this section it is said is down to there being no flow anymore. It was said that a young boy drowned there some years ago, and as a result the flow was shut off, how true that is, i couldn't say.

One sure fact, our rivers need fish in them.

matt1960 · Oct 16, 2010

Yes, there were sections of my river that 30-40 years ago were absolutely stuffed with fish, and now they are completely devoid of fish.
IMO fish will move to empty sections of river gradually, sometimes over years, but only when they feel safe and there is a plentiful food source.
If this is not happening, its probably for these reasons.

But I think they surveyed the Roach populations of the Hampshire Avon some while back and found that a huge mileage of the middle reaches had very little.
These were the very sections that were the mecca for Roach anglers in the past.

There must be something wrong, and I cant see the problem being Cormorants, Otters and Barbel only.
Matt

jcp01 · Oct 16, 2010

Every time I fish a river it is full of fish because I keep catching them as proof. I really have no clue what all the 'good ol days' crew are on about when they complain that 'things ain't what they used to be' because I keep catching fish after fish after fish and that kind of evidence flies in the face of what they are saying.

Confidence is most of it. If you go to the bank believing that there's no fish to catch, then, well, there ain't! You may as well go home and whinge online about how bad things are....

Which is what is going on, I reckon. Lots of so called anglers with very large chips on their shoulders who like to blame their unskillful blanks on everyone and everything else that could be conceivably employed as an excuse for serial failure caused solely by their own lacklustre efforts.

The canals round my way are case in point. Like the rivers, they are 'too clean' nowadays, and 'infested with zander' which means that they are devoid of the massive shoals of stunted roach of yesteryear, in fact I defy any angler here or anywhere to come and try to catch roach here, and succeed. You will go away believing that the canals are dead. And yet, contrary to appearances the canal is actually stuffed solid with specimen roach but you just can't catch the buggers. Well, you can but you have WORK AT IT. Of course this difficulty then perpetuates the myth that the canal is poor fishing, hence the lack of anglers on the towpath.

Suits me just fine - a lack of other anglers on the riverbank and towpath is a very, very good thing indeed. Stay away, stay away, no fish here, no fish here...

matt1960 · Oct 16, 2010

I think there are many rivers that have really improved over the years, and those may be the ones that had polution issues that have now been sorted out.
However, I know my river is not what is was, and its difficult to say why with any certainty.
And there are many examples of similar decline to my river.
My guess is that there is some kind of hidden polution going on, that is stopping invertebrate life thriving. (Maybe pesticide run off from agriculture?)
Matt

Rivers and there decline.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

alan whittington

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Banned

alan whittington

Guest

Well-known member

Active member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member