FISHERY MANAGEMENT
A Speech By
Frank Sawyer
This introduction by Frank Sawyer is based upon a speech he gave to Wessex fishery managers in the 1960s. The typed and handwritten speech was found in Frank’s personal notes that were left to Tim Sawyer on Frank’s death in 1980. While some of the speech is no longer applicable today, much is still hugely relevant.
Nick Sawyer
“First I would like to say that I consider it an honour to be with you here this evening and to make an address on the subject of Fishery Management. I must add however that in the time I have at my disposal it will be impossible to dwell more than briefly on this subject and there will be much which can’t be explained fully. Thousands of words have been written about the management of fisheries and still more, many more, have been spoken in general discussions. I can but touch on the fringe and just hope that this fringe will reduce after consideration is made of the various points at issue.
To be successful in fishery management lots of things have to be taken into consideration but there is one which is of the utmost importance. To be able to help with aquatic problems one must first know something about nature and here to my mind is the greatest problem of them all. I have been a river keeper for more than forty years and previous to this much of my early life was spent in the river valley. During this time I have tried to learn some of the many secrets there are held in nature, and to appreciate the mysteries of evolution. But the trouble is gentlemen; there is no standard pattern, no general repetition. Nature does not work to a set timetable. Long ago I came to the conclusion that it is no use basing one’s knowledge on what happened in a previous year, or indeed the two previous years, for often enough one must wait for five, seven or even ten years, before a repeat of a certain thing is made. I have often remarked that if you want to be sure of anything, you must see it repeated at least five times. Five is indeed a figure I keep well in mind when trying to work with nature for no matter what one tries to do, no conclusive evidence, good or bad, can be obtained in a shorter period. One needs patience, real patience and this I fear is where mistakes are often made. Too many people are anxious to get quick results and in many cases jump to a conclusion based on a single occurrence or observation.
The essential thing is of course water supply and for this we are dependant on rain or snowfall. If this is good then more than half the battle of fishery management is won. In a certain respect we all start off equal for as far as I know, please correct me later if I am wrong, the chemical content of water, rain or snow water, is the same wherever it may fall about the world. Rain and snow water can produce certain aquatic life but it is the additional elements which count in trout production. So from this it means that the value of water for the production of worthwhile aquatic life in rivers and streams, in ponds lakes and lochs, depends entirely on the nature of the land it has passed over or through, in getting to the general watershed, and along it. This in itself is a subject which could keep one occupied in thought for a considerable time, for water is the start of all creation. My knowledge of chemistry is poor I regret to say and this has been indicated in no uncertain terms by the critics of some of my work. I accept such criticism but I think it possible that I look at things from a rather different angle for it seems to me that for all the knowledge of chemistry acquired by one or another throughout the years nothing has materialised from these scientists to bring about a greater and more valuable production of fish and a well balanced food supply for them. I came to the conclusion long ago that a study of the various animal life in different waters and environment can give one a much better idea as to value.
I come from the South Country, from the chalk streams. Perhaps in this respect I am lucky for it has been common knowledge for a considerable time that there is a greater abundance and better quality of all aquatic life in the waters which are highly alkaline. However, though most of my life has been spent in the upper valley of the Hampshire Avon, I know the Test and the Itchen, the Kennet the Frome and Wylye. I know many other rivers and lakes too in this country, and indeed in other parts of the world. Enough to have been able to form my own general opinion. It is quite true, the best trout and the most abundant aquatic life for them is produced in localities where chalk or limestone is the principal formation of the countryside. This means that the great value of the chalk streams is brought about solely by the passage of rain or snow water coming in contact with calcium as it runs by gravity from the high lands to the valleys and thence by river or stream to the sea.
There is an old saying I have heard on many occasions when fishermen are discussing the merits of this or that water, and this is that you can’t make a silk purse from a pigs ear. I don’t entirely agree. The way I look at it is this. It just depends on how you go about it. If the pigs ear could be decomposed and broken down in the right way, the humus so created might well produce silk worms and the food such creatures need. This same thing can be said of water. If a certain water is not producing the kind of creatures that are desired, then some alteration to the general character should be made. Creation of certain classes of animals is brought about by different substances, or by a combination of such substances. From the commencement of the great cycle of life in water, to the end of this cycle, creation of certain types of animal must depend entirely on the food supply available and indeed on how this food supply has itself been created. In all nature it is the strongest which survive. Each tiny creature has its own battle of life and is dependant only on itself for existence. All must have food.
Nature has a way of keeping a balance. When through one reason or another there is an abundance of a certain thing, then along comes another entirely different thing to keep it in check. The thousands of different creatures one may find in water each have a purpose to fulfil. If it is desired to produce certain kinds, such as for instance trout and salmon, then first of all it is necessary to produce the right kind of food chain which leads to them and then to do one’s best to keep the balance in its true perspective. This is the kind of thing that has been occupying my thoughts and my time for many years and slowly though surely I feel I have made some progress.
The first thing to do it to find out the reason why there has to be such a multitude and such a variety of aquatic life and to ask oneself the question. Is it really necessary to bring about the production of sporting sized trout, or salmon as the case might be? It seems perfectly obvious that a trout has no need of all these creatures as a food supply. Autopsies through the seasons will prove this, and so one is led to the conclusion that the chief function of most of the aquatic life lies in the creation of a satisfactory environment, that indeed such animals are present to deal with decay and so ensure cleanliness.
The point I wish to make it that the number and variety of animals in a water depends to a very great extent on what kind of work there is for them to perform. One thing I have proved conclusively. A polluted or very muddy stretch of a river carries far more life than a clean one. And yet, though such animal life is too plentiful, the fish population can be extremely poor. All animals which live in water need a supply of oxygen. The greater the number and the variety, the greater is the oxygen absorbed.
And so one of the most important things in the river management is to keep a river clear of matter which is likely to become a breeding place for a multitude of undesirable creatures which may rob the more valued ones of the oxygen they so badly need. By undesirable I mean from a trout production angle, or from the angle of producing a food supply for them.
On various occasions I have been asked which of the many aquatic plants I consider to be of the most value in a trout water. My answer is that they all have value for nature does not produce useless things. The plants thrive or die according to environment. But this I can say. A water which can produce an abundance of such plants as Water Celery, Water parsnip, Water Cress and Ranunculus and little of any other types is indeed a good one, for the growth of many of the other classes is fostered by conditions which are adverse to the production of trout and the food of trout. I have come to the conclusion that one of the principal functions of weed in a river is to conserve the water supply. Another is to act as a food supply for certain creatures during the process of their decay and decomposition. Usually in rivers which produce an abundance of the plants I have mentioned there is an abundance of crustaceans and molluscs. But it has to be realised that there are many waters which produce good trout and plentiful insect life without there being any rooted plants of any kind. One might say therefore that rivers which are weedy are those which provide the larger classes of food. At the same time they, the weeds, act as a cover and sanctuary and in this respect are of value where waters are clear and slow running. If trout, large trout, are to live contentedly, then they must feel secure. By this I mean they should have places where they can hide in time of suspected danger.
The question then arises. Should weeds be cut and generally controlled in the interests of fishery management? If so how should they be cut to get the greatest advantage? My answer to the first, should weeds be cut, is no, if one is thinking solely from a production angle. If I had my own fishery all I would do would be to try and eliminate all beds which acted to accumulate mud. I would allow weeds to grow and decay in their proper season, as indeed they do in natural circumstances, and in their growth and decay perform the function ordained by nature. Often one can do far more harm than good by cutting weeds, if the object is to keep the river bed clean. If river weeds are allowed to grow and to decay in their proper season there is seldom any trouble caused by accumulations of unwanted spoil. If they are cut, especially if, cut early in the year, then the growths become stronger and thicker and act as a filter to retain mud which normally would be carried along by the stream forces. However, where a fishery is run to provide sport for a number of fishermen then some sacrifice has to be made to make fishing as easy as possible and one must act accordingly. Of all aquatic plants I think the Ranunculus species are the worst ones to interfere with fly or nymph fishing. These plants cut much easier if they are allowed to flower first. I usually make my first weed cut about the middle of June and in many cases this is sufficient to last throughout the fishing season. I have tried various methods but have come to the conclusion that for all purposes, by this I mean something to suit fish, fly and fishermen, you can’t beat the transverse bar system where sections of weeds are left untouched all season in bars across the river while those in between the bars are cut cleanly. A following year the bars of weed can be left in the parts which were cut out cleanly during the previous one, and so on. In this way a certain amount of weeds are allowed to go through their natural cycle.
We deal with most of our river with chain scythes. Our river has an average width of about sixty feet and we have some six miles to prepare for fishing in the shortest possible time. Weedcutting is hard work. Much of our fishery is shallow and it produces a tremendous crop of weeds each year. A few years ago I was able to lessen our work considerably by adapting an Allen Motor Scythe to work on a boat to do much of the pulling for us. Not only did this lessen the work but also the time taken in doing the job.
Though I am all for allowing weeds to grow and to decay naturally I have always done my best to make sure that great bulks of cut weed are not allowed to remain and rot. Great heaps of cut weed absorb oxygen fast and in decomposing they bring about a mass of animal life which is of little use and which become an additional burden. A short while ago I said a river can produce an abundance of trout and insects without having rooted plants in it at all. Usually in these waters some of the deficiency in rooted plants is made up by the growths of algae and mosses. Cover for fish comes in the fastest running water and in the deep pockets and pools etc. which are characteristic in these types of stream. Though insect life is plentiful, it is seldom that these classes of water produce any number of crustacean and molluscs of the kind needed, or taken by trout.
When a trout is fit for sport then I feel my part in his life is done. It is true I like to see big fish and to catch them but one must realise that success in having both quantity and quality comes in the care of the little fellows. The two pounder one is too proud to show off and which gave such good sport in the catching, started life in egg form. Had this egg not hatched, or the various stages which followed on not been successful, there would have been no fish to show off. And so, from the point of view of fishery management it is the egg one must start with. The spawning of trout never ceases to interest me for though I have been watching them since I was a small boy, each year I see something different. For example last year I saw a hen fish spawning and then eating her own eggs. One thing however remains constant, the trout of your boyhood days spawned in the exact location that is chosen by the fish of the present time. I came to the conclusion long ago that trout, and salmon, search for and find a certain thing in a river bed before attempting to lay eggs. My research has led me to believe that this certain thing is an oxygenated supply of pure water which comes up through the gravel from subterranean sources which ensures good hatching of the eggs.1 The spawning of trout in the upper Avon always coincides with the rising of the springs.
In the past many of those interested in fisheries have gone to the trouble of raking and cleaning, and indeed loosening parts of a river, or stream bed, where trout are, in the hope of encouraging them to use such places to spawn. To my mind this is just a waste of time and energy. You just can’t make trout spawn. You can dig up, rake and clean half a river bed and then find that most of the fish have chosen the other half that was left untouched. A surface cleaning of old redds can be done with some advantage but usually this is done very satisfactorily by the natural stream forces. If there is not sufficient water or run of water over these old redds then fish won’t use them in any case. One thing is important. It is a mistake to make conditions too clean and tidy. Trout like to have cover nearby when spawning. Weedbeds or perhaps an overhang or vegetation from the banks, such as rushed, old willow herb and figwort, loosestrife perhaps, or meadowsweet. A bush or a branch. Usually such cover is provided naturally, but if not something can be done to help. A few piles with braches suspended on them and covered with herbage of one kind or another, can form very useful hides which will give fish a feeling of security whilst engaged in spawning. When all activity is over such hides can be removed as they are not needed by the small fish. These hiding places are something one should keep in mind. Though tidy river banks look nice any of the old overhang should be left until spawning is over before being cut away.
All efforts should be made to encourage trout to spawn in places where there is a good chance for the survival of the young. In this respect one should keep in mind the fact that little fish need little waters and so all side streams where spawning can take place, are of great value. Mature trout choose shallow fast running waters and the main reason for this I feel sure, is to give any resulting young a chance to obtain food when this is required by them. Young trout in their very early feeding stage depend almost entirely for their food supply to be borne to them by the stream. They just poise themselves in the water and there wait, and hope no doubt, for nature to provide a continuous supply. My observations through the years have proved to me that it is the tiny larvae of certain midges, one of the Chironomids, that are the main food of these tiny trout and they have proved also that these small insects are only produced in clean, shallow well aerated conditions. After a young trout is a month old he can feed on a variety of creatures, and can indeed search for them.
Our policy on the upper Avon is to try and supplement natural spawning results with a few eggs hatched artificially. Some of these we get from trout farms and others I strip from our own fish. For many years I have hatched a number which have varied from fifty to one hundred thousand eggs. The resulting fry have been planted out into river and sidestreams just when they need their first food and at a time when experience has taught me that natural food can be available for them. This really is a kind of insurance against any serious mortality in the wild fish production and it is a cheap way of ensuring a stock of trout. Success with artificial fry stocking comes in knowing just when and where to put out the little fish, or to be more precise, to have them ready to put out. One can learn a lot by watching wild trout fry and when you know the kind of places instinct prompts these little fish to find, you can’t go far wrong in following this example when putting in others. With the exception of a few really large trout, either brown or rainbows, obtained from fish farms each year, a total never exceeding fifty, all trout in the upper Avon I look after, and those killed each year, are wild fish, the result of natural spawning or from the unfed fry we have introduced from the hatchery. During the past ten years our average tally of trout killed each season has been about fourteen hundred. These have all been fish of eleven inches or larger. The record take for a single season was 2,064. Our water extends for about six miles and in all represents about 25 acres. A mistake often made by those who wish to produce a stock by the introduction of unfed trout fry is to put these into the water too early in the year. April is the earliest one can expect a food supply to be available and if one can wait until the end of this month so much the better. The only way to ensure late fry is to incubate the eggs in cold water. This retards hatching and also the using up of the yolk sacs by the alevins.
The taking of this large number of trout each season has been accomplished by the use of the dry fly and nymph only. As I have said, they are all wild fish and as such they know very well how to look after themselves. It is not an easy matter to deceive and catch trout in the upper Avon and it is only because this water produces an abundance of insects of many kinds that such bags can be made each year. Our fish show well. By this I mean that on most days fish are to be found rising to one or other of the different kinds of insect which are on or in the water. We had plenty of fly last year when by all accounts the hatches were very poor on most rivers. Indeed the fly hatches only a few miles downstream on the Avon at Woodford were poor too.
This was of special interest to me. On several occasions I left our water at Netheravon when good hatches of fly were on, to got to Woodford, it only takes about a quarter of an hour by car, and then on arrival to find nothing doing. I have returned at once to find good hatches still on, and fish rising well. I am well aware there can be local appearances of insects on any river, and indeed on very short stretches but the difference between these two fisheries was too consistent to be ignored. It is too early yet for me to make any positive statement. This I can say however, for the past two years our upper Avon water has had calcium added to it in fair quantity and I feel this is going to be the answer where insect population is poor. As I said at the beginning of this talk, one can’t be certain of anything in less than five years, but there are already very good reasons to be hopeful and that our increase in insect population is due to the added calcium. I am quite sure that if we are to bring about an increase in insect life then it will have to be done by changing the character of the river, or the water. Most of our valuable small flies need really wholesome conditions if they are to thrive. Even as they in their turn, act as a food for trout, so they themselves must have a food supply. It is in the creation of this food supply that calcium can be so valuable. When one takes into consideration the really enormous number of eggs laid by a single female spinner, 2,000 in the case of Olives 5,000 for Mayflies, if one can only bring about an increase of one per cent, the total can be tremendous. One per cent is not a lot to aim for and I am sure more than this can be effected.
I have no intention of repeating here the story I wrote under the heading “Is chalk all important for Trout Growth,” which was published last year by the Trout and Salmon Magazine. I wrote this in the hope that others would follow our example in experimenting with calcium to that in a few years we could all have some idea as to its value in different waters; I shall be writing more on this subject in about a year from now when I know there will be some facts which can be outlined.
For many years various people have tried to bring about an increase in certain types of flies. At one time fly boards were in common use but no great success was achieved. The idea put forward by William Lunn when he invented these, was that the suspended boards would save attacks by caddis and other creatures which prey on fly eggs. In a way this is true. But you must also remember that in most waters where small fly are scarce, so also are caddis. It isn’t as though caddis are a new creature brought about by pollution or other alteration to the character of the water. In our own endeavours to make our water more wholesome for small fly by the introduction of calcium, the caddis population has increased too. This I think is sufficient proof that caddis and numerous small fly can live quite happily together and that indeed any depredation by caddis on fly eggs has little effect if everything else is in order.
Stocks of small fly of all kinds showed decided improvement in the years which followed the general clean up of the whole six miles of the Avon in my charge. It is now ten years since we completed most of the work in which dragline excavators and bulldozers were used to clear the vast accumulations of mud and silt. We did of course alter the whole character of the river by the removal of various controls whereby the river became an almost natural course and in character much like it must have been before any harnessing was done by man, for milling and irrigation. It is perhaps significant that we have had little trouble from settlements of mud since this work was completed. I am quite familiar with most of the animals which inhabit water and in past years I did a lot of study on the life history of most of the insects which are relied upon to give us our sport of fly fishing. One thing I have proved conclusively, most of our valued flies need clean, well aerated conditions. Shallow and well oxygenated water will produce a thousand times more small fly than a sluggish deep. The aim therefore is to provide such condition if they are not already available. If they are and still not producing, then it is quite certain something serious is wrong with either the river bed, or the water, perhaps both.
One of our greatest troubles these days is drainage from roads. I feel sure that the deterioration of fly stocks in many fisheries has been caused through this evil, for evil it is. So much, of so many, different impurities can enter into a river from a road drain. All are alien to a river and in many cases toxic to aquatic life as anyone who has sufficient interest can soon discover. I did discover this years ago and we tried our utmost to obviate some of the trouble by arranging a series of big pits which formed traps into which road drainage could be discharged so that some of the suspended matter could fall from suspension, and percolation occur, before the water could get to the river. The traps have proved to be very successful and it was found on one occasion when a test was made after a heavy storm that some 80% of the suspended matter carried from the roads was trapped in a pit. To my mind the road authorities could do a lot to help with this very serious matter. They are very lax simply because no pressure is brought to bear on their responsibilities. Usually they take the easiest way out and just direct all storm water to the nearest low ground. In many cases this is direct to the river or to some stream or ditch which connects to it. Perhaps, if all interested in pure rivers took a stand and insisted that the road authorities cleansed all their storm water before discharging it into the rivers we might accomplish something. We set an example on the upper Avon which might well be followed for it has proved to be of great benefit.
In talking of fly and fly stocks I have made little mention of the Mayflies. This is an insect which I feel we could very well do without, if, it had to be sacrificed to produce more of the smaller types of Ephemeroptera. It is true a good mayfly river can bring about some excitement and should it so happen that the same river can produce an abundance of small flies too, then all well and good. But there are some places where the Mayfly provides the only worthwhile fishing during the season and this is simply because other species have little chance to thrive. Mayflies can, and do, live in a river bed which is foul. Some of the greatest hatches I can ever remember on the Avon came around 1950 when our river was full of mud and other undesirable spoil. Small fly hatches were indeed poor. Not that there was any excitement, far from it. Despite the terrific hatches of mayflies few fish rose to take them and I feel sure that this was because they had been existing in unsavoury conditions. If Mayflies are to be acceptable as a food for trout then, like all else of their food, they must live in wholesome surroundings. A river which provides an abundance of small flies is seldom a good one for abundant mayflies. There are few exceptions, but I speak in general terms. Usually the conditions which foster the mayfly larvae and nymphs are adverse for such creatures as Olives and Iron Blues. The Blue Winged Olive is a more general type and indeed this has some of the characteristics of the Mayfly. It is true it is not of the burrowing group but it can and does live in conditions which favour Mayfly and these, as I have said, can be very foul.
Perhaps by now you will have realised that all I have said so far is something to prove that success in fishery management depends to a very great extent on the cleanliness and wholesomeness of the river bed and the correct water supply. When I say cleanliness this does not necessarily mean that the whole river bed must be bright gravel for this is something which is impossible. Certain mud and silt will always be present and is indeed desirable. Mud arises from the breakdown of organic matter, from indeed the decay which should naturally take place in due season. In a running stream decay in one form or another is continuous and it is this which forms the nucleous for the first animal life which are of value in the chain of food which leads to the trout. In a natural stream a good balance is usually kept. All matter is broken down completely by the various animal life and then the residue should be carried away by the stream forces. If, as happens, the decaying mass exceeds the working parties whose function it is to break it down so that it is completely decomposed, then trouble arises. If for some reason, let us say for example, a bad pollution, the working parties have suffered severe loss, then there is a lapse, a breakdown in the cycle. Then accumulations occur. Again should some substances, organic or otherwise, enter into a water which need animals other than those naturally produced in water to work on them to effect a breakdown, then, in some cases it happens that a completely different class of animal is created and these often to the detriment of those which are indigenous. By this I mean, the breakdown of many terrestrial things cannot be accomplished by truly aquatic creatures. In consequence various organic matter collects into vast undecomposed heaps and there act to absorb the oxygen content of the water. All efforts should be made to assist nature in the disposal of decay. Winter is the time to do this and at times when one can be aided by natures forces. A flood can often to a power of good.
One of the chief troubles on the Avon is caused by the leaves and sticks which fall form the riverside trees. I spoke just now of certain things which enter into a river course from the land and that nature is not equipped to deal with them. Leaves are one of these and indeed to my mind the worst. More undesirable matter arises from the rot of leaves than from any other source and many good stretches of trout water have been ruined because of them. All you need to do to find out about leaves is to put a number into a container full of water. Leave them for a couple of months and then stir them to see the oily mess the water becomes. They are indeed a source of bad pollution both in decay and when finally decomposed and add a great burden on nature in her task of keeping a river wholesome. Rotting, or rotted leaves produce nothing of value as a food supply, or leading to a food supply for trout, and indeed act as a deterrent to the production of many good class creatures. Trees are not indigenous in the flat of a river valley, or beside the river. Had they been in the scheme of things for aquatic life production then, nature would have grown them. As it is, all trees in the flat of a river valley been planted there by man. They have become a menace to good fishery management in more ways than the shedding of leaves. It is trees I blame for the continual falling off in water supplies. I have written on this subject at various times in the past. One cannot ignore the facts, and sentiment has no place in the laws of nature. Only by being sure of the past can one plan for the future and any plans I have do not include the planting of trees at any point where they can effect the water supply or foul that already present in the river.
The control of pike and coarse fish, which includes grayling, in a trout water is very necessary and if it is possible to eliminate them entirely, so much the better. Many of these eat the same kind of food as trout and therefore compete for the food supply. In the case of pike they should only be tolerated if they cannot be caught, for the presence of one pike in a pool can mean the loss of least fifty trout in a year. This is a very conservative estimate. A pike can take a trout which is one third its own size. There are those who insist that a few pike in a trout water are useful. With this I cannot agree. Pike take only the best and this I have proved on hundreds of different occasions. Today we are much better equipped to control undesirables than we were say twenty years ago, for the discovery of electrical apparatus has proved a method which gives us a decided advantage in the smaller classes of river and stream. Years ago our main control was netting, indeed even now there are various places where netting is the most effective method for the removal of coarse fish. One can deal methodically with small rivers and streams with electricity if these are narrow and not over six feet in depth but in wide and deeper waters the electrical machine is useless, unless used with a very high current when it is dangerous to both operators, and to fish one wishes to preserve.
Netting a river is no simple task and it calls for considerable work and planning if the job is to be done successfully. It is best to choose a time when the river is low and with the least flow, say latter October or early November. First the river should be prepared which means the thorough cutting of all aquatic vegetation and the trimming of both banks to make easy passage along them. Then a chain or a weighted rope should be dragged along the bed to locate and if possible remove anything which might act to snag the net as it is being dragged along. Particular attention should be centred on the deep parts. Deep water is the home of most coarse fish and indeed most pike, and it is quite a simple matter to drive them downstream from a shallow to a deep. It is in the deep one should try to catch them. A mistake often made by those inexperienced in netting is to do too much at a time. Short drags and sweeps through individual pools is better by far than attempting to drive fish over shallows from one pool to the next, and so on. Another mistake too, is to try and land a net in shallow water. The deeper the water, within reason of course, the better a net will fish. Fish do not get alarmed, and the job is easier in many ways. The important thing in netting is to think about the lead line and make sure it hugs closely to the bottom. When fish escape it is at the bottom not the top. The cork line can be seen but the lead line must be imagined.
It is very important that the stretch of river to be netted should be well prepared. In years past it would take us a week, perhaps longer to prepare a stretch of water we could net comfortably in a day. Even then, even after all the work in preparation a certain number of fish always escaped. It was rather drastic. In the stripping of the river bed for netting this meant the sacrifice of many weedbeds which held a valuable food supply and which could have afforded good cover for trout during the winter months, gain in one respect meant loss in another.
Since the first time I saw an electrical fishing machine I knew it had considerable advantages over netting, for pike. Through the years it has given me the control I needed so badly and indeed saved a lot of work and expense. The larger and longer the fish the easier it is to take them and those types which take shelter in weedbeds and snags play right into one’s hands. Electric fishing has the advantage that no preparation of the water is necessary.
An instance of what can happen when a river is netted without being prepared beforehand happened in the autumn of last year. I have written an article about this which will appear shortly in the Trout and Salmon Magazine and briefly this is what took place. The stretch was one of about four miles on the Avon at Woodford and it was netted by the Avon and Dorset Rivers Board. From it a total of some twenty five hundred coarse fish and grayling, together with fifteen pike up to seven pounds were taken. Just three days afterwards I did the same stretch with my electrical machine. From it we took thirty seven pike, several of which were about ten pounds and two which weighed 17 and 15 pounds respectively. Three salmon each about ten pounds came to the electrode and one outsize trout which I estimated to weigh quite fifteen pounds. Many other trout, some up to six pounds were seen too and could have been taken and in addition there was a bag of some 15 hundred coarse fish and grayling. All these fish, and others too, which were seen but not caught, had escaped the netting by lying in weedbeds or taking advantage of a lift of the net as it encountered a snag. None were observed in their escape and had it not been known that larger fish than any taken in the nets were in this water, one might have been satisfied that a good job had been done.
Netting and electrical fishing are full scale operations and both need a good team to ensure success but pike can be kept down by individuals with other means and the most effective when fish can be seen in the water, is the use of the snare and the harpoon. Pike are not difficult to snare if you go the right way about it and during my life I have caught many hundreds of all sizes up to twenty pounds. Just a few observations which might be of help. First the snare. I prefer a malleable steel to brass or copper, stranded of course. This I make up so that it can open out to a full circle with a diameter of about nine inches. In making up the snare I double up the part which goes on the end of a stick, so that when tied on, the snare itself stands out a good nine inches. My reason for doing this is that pike are more likely to touch them, well they move out of the way. If however the stick end is passed over his head. I find a fairly stiff stick of some twelve to fifteen feet to be an easy length to manipulate. It is always best to try to work the noose over the head rather than the tail of a pike. No fast movement should be made. The time to pull and tighten the noose is just as it is about to pass the pectoral fins. A strong even pull with an even swing to land the fish, and he should be yours.
The harpoon I mentioned is an instrument of my own design and for this it is necessary to have a rod, reel and line. An old stiff rod of some twelve to fifteen feet is required and if necessary this can be fashioned with bamboo canes. To the top of the rod a short length of steel is attached permanently. One then has a long rod at the end of which is a detachable spearhead. The point of this harpoon needs to be needle sharp and there should be a keen cutting edge on the outside of the barb. After threading the rod rings the line is attached to the hole in the centre part of the harpoon head, just threaded through and tied in a knot. Line is wound up on the reel until the reel check prevents the harpoon head from slipping off and all is ready for operation. The rod guiding the harpoon can be pushed into the water and out to within a foot or so of the pike, the aim being to hit him in the shoulder. An even stoke forward is then made, like using a billiard cue. The moment a fish is hit let him take the harpoon head, then lift up the rod and play him to land. A strong line should be used. A good thrust usually means that the harpoon head passes well into, and perhaps through the fish. The tightening of the line makes the head turn into a T piece which cannot be withdrawn. To disengage, the line should be cut and a new knot tied.
The harpoon has decided advantages over a wire snare for with it one can hit and take fish when only a small part is showing. I used this outfit a lot of years ago but we have very few pike left anywhere now. In the wrong hands of course such an instrument as this can be deadly for other fish, such as salmon, and it was for this reason I never put it on the market.
The third method I recommend is fishing sink and draw with a dead bait. For this I like a small trout or loach about four to five inches long and mounted so that it can be fished head first into the water. Mounts are quite easy to make. All one needs is some fairly stiff wire doubled to make a stem. Then a lump of lead is beaten into shape around one end. The long part is thrust into the mouth of the bait so that the eye in the wire comes through the skin near to the tail. The lead rests in the belly of the bait with the eye at the end just inside the mouth. A baiting needle and thread can then be used to tie the jaws securely to the wire eye and then a thread should be tied around the head to keep the gills closed. To finish the mounting another binding should go around the wrist of the tail to prevent the bait splitting. All then necessary is to attach the trace and a treble hook at the tail eye of the bait and all is ready for operation.
I have found this to be very deadly. The bait should be fished in a slow sink and draw. When a pike takes let all go slack and then wait until the fish runs with the bait before tightening to set the hooks.
When I spoke of electric fishing at Woodford I mentioned seeing salmon. This I know is a branch of the salmon and trout association and I feel sure there are members here who perhaps have more interest in salmon than in trout. To these I apologise and now try to make amends by talking a little about salmon in the Avon. First I would like to say that there are many others better qualified to speak on salmon for my knowledge is extremely limited. However, I am a naturalist and look at all things from this view. I can only think of the twenty or thirty pound salmon in the same way as I think of a two pound trout. Such fish must start from the egg and then go on through the delicate stages of early life. Even as with trout I feel sure the instinct of salmon prompts them to find satisfactory spawning grounds and a place where any resulting young can find a food supply. Indeed trout and salmon have much in common in this respect. The same urge which prompts a pair of trout to leave a main river and run up into a tiny side stream to spawn, must act with a pair of salmon. They leave the sea to enter into fresh water and then to forge their way as far upstream in a river as they think fitting for their purpose.
The trouble in many cases is that the fish can’t, or are not allowed, to keep pace with their natural impulses. For many fish, the upper reaches of rivers are denied to them by some act of man. We had this same sort of thing in the Avon. Fish could, and did, run up so far, and then obstructions in one form or another prevented further access. Salmon like conditions similar to trout for spawning. The deposition of the eggs is almost identical and the young of salmon need the same kind of food as the young of trout. And so it is logical to say that good trout water can also be good salmon water, that is, from the young production point of view. It is also logical to say if salmon can’t spawn in a suitable environment then little result can come of their activities.
As I have said, for many years the passage of Avon salmon to the upper reaches of the river was restricted in one way or another. A few fish could get as far as Salisbury but beyond this no. None could get to the real trout water of the Avon. I was quite pleased when I heard that the Avon and Dorset River’s Board, under the guidance of the Fishery and Pollution Officer, John Brayshaw, decided to remove various obstacles to the passage of fish and to provide passes at other points where this was not possible. This has happened in the past five years but there is already ample evidence that it is having the desired effect. Salmon are now running well up into the Woodford valley which is several miles upstream from Salisbury. They are spawning with trout and what is more to the point there are very good results coming from this activity. When I electric fished this water last autumn I saw a really first class stock of salmon parr and this, to my mind is all the proof needed. If a river is producing good numbers of small salmon naturally and there are allowed to go to the sea in their proper season, then most certainly many of them will return as big fish in due course.
It is a great mistake to think that just because salmon make redds and spawn that production will follow. A little thought can be enlightening. Even in the best of trout rivers there are few small trout in the lower reaches. This simply is because, even if they hatch successfully from the eggs laid by the large trout, the young have no chance for survival. The bigger a river becomes, the warmer is the water and in consequence it becomes the home of coarse fish and pike. In the lower Avon pike are numerous, so are perch and chub, so also are a few big trout who are glad of a meal of salmon parr. I think it should be obvious. If there is to be parr and smolt production then the parent fish must be allowed to get to waters where it is known that trout are produced naturally.
A craze lately has been in the stripping and artificial hatching of salmon eggs, with what I think is a wild hope of rearing the young fish to the smolt stage and then letting them loose to go direct to the sea. Perhaps something will come of it all for it has cost enough money, goodness knows. Somehow I can’t think the scheme will work in the way planned. I feel sure a salmon returns to the river and indeed the place of its hatching, simply because it has memory of its early life, its feeding life in the fry, parr, and smolt stages. During this time it gets the full taste of the water in this certain river, enough indeed to know it from others. If young salmon are denied this by being in captivity, and perhaps in a different class of water, then the chances are that they are as likely to go to one river as another when the spawning urge comes. It will be more by good luck than by any instinct if some should appear in the river where they were released as smolts.
My own views are, if salmon eggs are hatched artificially then a method of planting out the young, similar to that I adopt for young trout should be used. I think it is a good idea to hatch eggs, especially if fish can’t get to good spawning sites to deposit naturally. I feel sure the best and the most economical policy would be to plant out the young salmon in the very late alevin stage, just before they need food other than that contained in the yolk sac. The little fry should then be put into little waters, where, as I have tried to explain with trout fry, each has a chance to get a food supply brought to them by the currents.
Some good can be done by laying down the eyed ova of salmon so that these can hatch naturally in the river or stream. But in doing this one should have a little thought beforehand. Both trout and salmon choose certain places in a river bed to make redds. If eyed ova are to be laid down then the site chosen should be one where either trout or salmon have been known to spawn naturally.
In nature there is a reason for everything if you care to look for it and wait long enough. As I said a while ago, nature produces nothing that is useless. One should never seek to destroy before finding out why such a thing has existence. We should remember too, that we are but a very small part in the great universe. As such we can help but never command. And now gentlemen, I thank you for your attention. If I could now have a few minutes for a drink and a smoke. I will then be pleased to try and answer any questions you may wish to ask. When you realise that it takes 7lbs of food to produce a trout of 1lb you know that food production in a river plays a very important part in the making of a successful fishery.
Footnote:
1. More recent research has shown that the oxygen content of spring water is low but it does have the effect of keeping redds silt free so that the oxygenated river water can reach the eggs.