Obviously, I am not as well versed as you are on this subject but don't you think you ought to consider the miniscule possibility that the the Trent might JUST perhaps have met the same fate as the other rivers you brushed over....ie abstraction, predation, bad spawning years, floods, fry washout and a multitude of other reasons.
Clear not versed!
You have stated on the visits you’ve made to the Trent that it’s cr*p despite other telling you its not and its now thriving with silver fish again.
I did not brush over the issue you say, but addressed my comments on the historical aspect of it, and the power stations influences. Made plain and simple by using dates and words such as 1960s, 70s, early 80s Trent hay-days.
As for your suggestion that I should read more about river eco systems "before I rush in with statements like I have in this thread"....oh purleeease.....I go fishing mate cos' I love it...love being on the river, love watching all the wildlife and if I catch a fish..all the better. I don't want, need or desire to study it in all it's scientific existence...my statements in this thread are easy to understand and all I was looking for was a few possible reasons....calm down buddy boy.
I presume “purleeease” means please does it? Bit like my misspelling of Soar and Sour eh!
And the things you like seeing, watching and occasionally catching are all dependant on good quality ecosystems to sustain them. Even a rudimentary knowledge of how they work allows you to argue from a position of understanding. Without which you will come across as misguided or words used more strongly than that. For far to long anglers have been easy meat for the powers that be to dismiss arguing from poor understanding, entrenched misguided and at time frankly daft views. I care passionately about my fishing and the good health of the ecosystems they reside in, as should all anglers to the best of their ability. And if to do that it means learning a bit of rudimentary scientific knowledge then the powers that be can’t and won’t try to pull the wool over their, our, eyes with bull excrement. But hey if you’re happy to be a mushroom, you crack on old boy, don’t let me stop you. But for me and many others, we’ll try not to let it happen on our watch!
The title of this thread is a simple question that even you should be able to understand....why are you slagging me off...what have I said or done to you to deserve your hostility on this subject?
Agree it was a simple question when you wrote it, but to then enter the debate with comments like you have in your subsequent posts “Fish recession,” being one that comes to mind, it is no longer the simple question you asked as you are expressing what you believe are definitive views on it. So matey, those views are open to scrutiny and challenge and therefore just repeating it’s a simple question when challenged on them just doesn’t wash.
You take fishing far too seriously....it's just a hobby....that's all....just a hobby matey....it's not ANYTHING serious.
That may well be the case re my fishing, But unlike you from what you’ve wrote, I like achieving my aims and objectives I set for myself each time I fish. As to it not being ANYTHING serious. Well threats to the waters I fish in are in my book very serious and I do take them more than serious. As without that seriousness, I’m old enough and live in an area, that within my lifetime, such waters were just open sewers. So I fully understand what the consequences will be if we don’t fight to maintain them in a good ecological state. Bluntly, they revert back to open sewers and the fishing’s gone! And I do mean gone! Not that you can’t catch them. I mean gone, dead, expired!
....well, not for most of us anyway.
Rather a presumptuous statement that on your part, claiming to know what most view it as!
---------- Post added at 02:57 ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 ----------
I don't dispute the effect of warmed water but surely it would be quite localised , lets say the effect extends 3 miles from the Power Station ( that's just a guess obviously and may not be accurate ) then that's less than 50 miles of a very long river that would be affected.
Sorry to disappoint you Benny but it's far to simplistic that and the research over many years shows that. Eg Solar radiation (sunshine) on the upper catchments of long rivers may raise the river temperature 10 C locally. Where the lower catchment is dull overcast during the subsequent period with a lower river temperature than that of the upper catchment warming. By the time the same water reaches the low it raises that ambient water temperature by 2-3 C. The same water may have travelled over 100 miles to the lower, losing 7 - 8C on its travels. Yes it losses some heat but not all of it and therefore raises the lower’s temperature correspondingly.
The power Stations had the same effect but with a constant knock on effect every time it passed a PS outflow. I seem to recall the max temperature a PS could release outflow water at was 80F and that outflow water wasn’t a trickle it was equal to a smallish river or a large brook running constantly 24/7.
