Trout fishermen, take note. (Please read and sign).

[kernel gadaffi]

This an important announcement to gamefishers, especially, trout anglers, within the next year, the Enviromental Agency are planning on implementing a plan to only allow the stocking of triploid trout into all rivers and enclosed fisheries in England and Wales, for anyone who doesn't know, triploid trout can't breed, whereas diploid trout (native brown trout) can, stocking triploid fish is pointless and they will eat the food the native fish depend on, in the long term, the continual stocking of triploids will mean they eventally become the dominant species and the native brown trout will probably disappear.
Another little known fact about the brown trout is that, some, but not all, go to sea and return as sea trout, both of these fish have the same species name (Salmo Trutta), so if the EA have their way, not only will the brown trout vanish, the sea trout will too.
If your an angler, live with one or know one, please tell or send them the link below to register so we can try and get the governnent to overturn this decision.
This is a very important issue, the brown trout in our waters have been there since the ice age and deserve to be protected.

 

 

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/60567

[t_c_mitch]

But surely this is a good thing - protecting the genetic integrity of the wild brown trout. I only had a brief read of the EA report but it suggests both diploid and triploid introduced fish are considerably less fit than native fish with no evidence of an impact on the size, number or diet of wild fish. As the triploid fish do not partake in spawning activity it allows the fitter, wild fish to get on with it!

[kent]

But surely this is a good thing - protecting the genetic integrity of the wild brown trout. I only had a brief read of the EA report but it suggests both diploid and triploid introduced fish are considerably less fit than native fish with no evidence of an impact on the size, number or diet of wild fish. As the triploid fish do not partake in spawning activity it allows the fitter, wild fish to get on with it!

No its very very bad. Tripolid can only take from the environment by eating spawn of those natural fish and their young. THE IDIOTS are already on with this on the Ribble, I wont fish it again as a number of clubs and syndicates are actually stocking them.

Big tripoids will occupy lies and keep salmon and seatrout off your beat eat smolts etc. Seatrout are naturally occurring in the brown trout. stock natural browns from a landlocked stain and some will turn into seatrout migrate to different rivers, some will stay as browns and some of those that migrate as ST will breed brown non migatory in other rivers . NO such thing as genetic purity! Outside of a few Lakeland tarns (which have perhaps also been topped up or stocked with trout in the past by anglers for hundreds of years). Seatrout can also interbreed with browns that stay (as long as they are not Tripoid junk).

All this talk of purity is just about funding and those in the seats do not know diddly squat about how a river works. Seatrout have migrated from Morecambe bay to Wales and the north east, how are we to stop them? is a Lune fish genetically different from a Ribble fish? Not honestly as they have been going from one to the other via the sea from the time the ice disappeared.

Turning our rivers to put and take Tripoid waters should be an offence let alone a recomendation

[kent]

I implore all to sign this and stop it happening to your river - PLEASE these are students and fools looking for tick boxes and funding

[t_c_mitch]

I'm not quite sure what you want here. You argue that triploid fish will impact on the wild fish population by displacement (which the report suggests is not true) however this is no different to what would occur if stocking with diploid fish. Just because diploid fish CAN breed with the wild population doesn't mean that they will (or indeed that this is a good thing), and it certainly doesn't mean that it will be a major benefit to the wild population. As far as I can see there are two options - catch a sustainable amount of wild brown trout and stock no fish, or supplement the natural population with sterile fish so that you can catch more. As you say, brown trout can migrate, so why should you be allowed to (in all likelihood negatively) affect an ecosystem elsewhere. Stocking animals that can breed with the wild population is not the answer - think how well stocked pheasant and partridge breed compared with their wild relatives.

[johnphilip]

to me it seems about cost, it cost a lot more to produce brown trout , they are slower growing . the main reason the brown trout goes to sea is because there is not enough food in the river , so he goes to sea to feed on the richer grounds and returns to the river to spawn. so if you introduce another type of trout then the brown trout has even more trouble feeding .............................signed

[kenj]

The small Hampshire syndicate river I fish, has a natural head of brown trout, which has been stocked for at least a hundred tears, to replenish those fish taken by anglers. The wild fish breed in the river and we have a wide variety of fish spot patterns, from multi spotted to those with just a few red spots, where they have interbred over the many years. To say that the EA wish to preserve a pure breed in our river, I say they are at least a hundred years too late. All our fish are now catch and release, but the management stock every year with triploids up to two pounds, which take over the good lies, pushing out the wild fish. Likewise because these triploids do not breed, they feed during the natural spawning period, which must mean at some time they will be eating wild trout spawn, likewise more likely to eat young trout. Like the Somerset Levels, I think this is more wonkey thinking from the EA. This was one of the trout I caught last year, that had no place in our little river.

This was my Blog http://www.urbanfieldsportsman.com/index.php/overwintered-stockie-pays-its-dues/

[JohnFreeman1310]

Signed my grandad was a very keen fisherman.

[kent]

I'm not quite sure what you want here. You argue that triploid fish will impact on the wild fish population by displacement (which the report suggests is not true) however this is no different to what would occur if stocking with diploid fish. Just because diploid fish CAN breed with the wild population doesn't mean that they will (or indeed that this is a good thing), and it certainly doesn't mean that it will be a major benefit to the wild population. As far as I can see there are two options - catch a sustainable amount of wild brown trout and stock no fish, or supplement the natural population with sterile fish so that you can catch more. As you say, brown trout can migrate, so why should you be allowed to (in all likelihood negatively) affect an ecosystem elsewhere. Stocking animals that can breed with the wild population is not the answer - think how well stocked pheasant and partridge breed compared with their wild relatives.

Firstly there is honestly no such thing as a wild population of indigenous to that river Brown trout, they have been stocked and moved about for centuries. Secondly if a fish does not in itself breed it does not contribute to the river in way of food (yes trout are canibals) so what does it do but eat? Hence it takes no place within the give and take. There is too much theory without hard won knowledge here. During the autumn run Grayling appear at the Reds in many rivers as if by magic, they are there for the Salmon spawn! This has gone on from after the ice caps melted and posses no great risk as the Grayling itself also gets predated upon and also spawns (well after the Salmon) this is nature working her balancing act.

Triploid fish do not spawn and hence are just eating machines, they grow faster and escape preditation younger as a result. This is all very bad and shows how much our river management has ended up in the hands of idiots with fancy courses behind them but little real practical knowledge of the subject.

Large stocked trout displace both salmon and seatrout by their pre-occupation of the lies, not by bullying a 20 lb plus fish out just by occupation- studies try spending thirty years on the river and listening to the old river keepers (some of whom could hardly write their name left school early but knew their fish better than any fool in an office who now tells us they know more). Big fish need a big lie 2lb plus fish are an issue but these are rare on a natural river in balance, allow or worst still enforce stocking by default and 1 1/2 - 2 lb will become the norm. So what you get is 2-5lb+ fish swimming up river onto the reds (because they aint busy breeding like natural browns) just like those Grayling have done for centuries. Now a big tripoid can eat a lot more than a 9" Grayling and can also exist in higher numbers AS IT IS STOCKED! Once those parr hatch they are predated upon again and as if the Cormerants and such were not enough of a threat we now have the same big fat triploids tucking into the smolts! The grayling hower makes its contribution to the smolts- its spawn, if you don't believe my fish any artificial that looks like spawn in among the grayling as they busy themselves at this later time, smolt after smolt will dive at it. Give and take, that's nature REAL LIFE away from office walls and university halls!!

[firdom]

Done

[t_c_mitch]

Whilst trout have indeed been stocked for a long time, the method has changed dramatically - large fish farms have replaced small hatcheries. The point of this legislation is that there is no evidence that stocking improves the fitness of wild trout populations, with all evidence suggesting that the opposite is likely true. This is therefore a proactive measure to try to ensure that brown trout continue to survive in the long term, so they exist for future generations. Maybe the scientists that you are so angry with are wrong, but what if they are right? Legislation can be withdrawn if it is shown that it is not working or the science is flawed. The affects of artificially stocking mass farmed fish into wild ecosystems may not have effects that are seen in our lifetime, or even our children's. They are small, but they add up. By the time the effects are visible enough to convince people such as yourself it may be too late.

 

I enjoy river fishing for wild fish. I want my children to be able to fish rivers for wild fish, and their children too. If you want to fish for big, fat artificial fish then go and fish in a pond. Stocking mass farmed fish into a river with a wild population is not the answer. If the population of trout in the river is not at it's optimal density then improve the habitat, if it is, then stop being so greedy. Your arguments against stocking triploid fish hold just as much for stocking diploid fish.

 

I suggest you read the report here: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/sc04007_120407__1804106.pdf

[kent]

Sorry. but we were refused permission to strip fish already in the river, re-introduce the hatchlings. This is a LOAD OF, I am not willing to even look at any more garbage from kids with degrees and no hard won knowledge. Anglers have preserved stocks and even re-introduced them just fine as long ago as the industrial revolution, when many of our river were toxic. Even well before that, even as far as BUTAN (which was stocked from Loch Leven BTW) heck of a journey on a ship powered by sail!!!

EU funding and genetic purity BS, say what they want and keep your wages is the message to the EA scientist.

 

IF YOUR AN ANGLER or support what anglers have done even before the EA came to be please sighn. REMEBER those toxic rivers of the past