where are all the fish.....

[Airehead]

Originally Posted by Gill Catton

I saw lots of little fish (maybe 25cm at the most) swimming up a brook away from me

Now just a minute - I just read back to this point and realised what you said, and I must say if you think 25cm is SMALL than you should take up fishing. It is for sure that no gudgeon ar loach was ever this size. Perhaps you meant 25mm? but that would be very small indeed so unless you say otherwise I am going to settle for 2.5ins. I prefer inches anyway.

However -
Gudgeon have one pair of barbules and are silvery. A loach has several barbules and according to the books is mottled brown. Funnily enough, all the loach I have ever caught (accidentally) have been so pale coloured as to be almost transparent.

Bear in mind though, that a silver-scales fish seen from above looks the colour of the river bed because the scales reflect the colour below. That is why they are silver.

[Rich]

Not very clear I'm afraid, but here is a pic showing a mirror carp and rudd in my garden pond.

[Lincs Yellowbelly]

Originally Posted by Airehead

Now just a minute - I just read back to this point and realised what you said, and I must say if you think 25cm is SMALL than you should take up fishing. It is for sure that no gudgeon ar loach was ever this size. Perhaps you meant 25mm? but that would be very small indeed so unless you say otherwise I am going to settle for 2.5ins. I prefer inches anyway.

However -
Gudgeon have one pair of barbules and are silvery. A loach has several barbules and according to the books is mottled brown. Funnily enough, all the loach I have ever caught (accidentally) have been so pale coloured as to be almost transparent.

Bear in mind though, that a silver-scales fish seen from above looks the colour of the river bed because the scales reflect the colour below. That is why they are silver.

I though Gill said 25mm to be honest(must take more care reading) that is why i said about Gudgeon they could have even been small barbel, they are Brown, have splayed pecs and whiskers

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by Airehead

I can't figure out why you need to wade to find water voles. If they exist in the river, you will see them by walking on the bank and the vole will be in the river. Being in the river yourself, I should think you reduce the chance of seeing them.

I need to find the burrows rather than the actual animals and this is often easier from the river - sometimes it's the only way if the bank is tall you see .

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by Lincs Yellowbelly

I though Gill said 25mm to be honest(must take more care reading) that is why i said about Gudgeon they could have even been small barbel, they are Brown, have splayed pecs and whiskers

No sorry 25cm and there were lots of them - mostly smaller than this though maybe four or five were this big most were 15cm or less. There may have been two pairs of whiskers (barbels?) but they were definately brown and blotchy rather than silver, the water was fairly shallow in places and it was a sunny day, there was no glinting......

[Airehead]

Gill -
firstly, re water voles - may I ask why you want to find the burrows, and have you seen voles in the water? because if not I would say there is no point in looking for burrows.

Secondly, re 25cm fish - as I said, there is no loach or gudgeon so big. I agree with Lincs Y, I don't see what they could be other than small barbel but they are not blotchy. Maybe this was the light? Sunlight through ripples gives that effect. How brown/bronze/green they look depends on their age, the light, the colour of the river bed and the whole situation (On one of my very rare visits to a commercial fishery I caught a barbel in still, strongly coloured water and it was an anaemic silver. Usually, the clearer the water normally is, the more colour the fish develop). Barbel have 2 pairs of barbules.

Thirdly - it sounds to me that you are the person to solve your question of "where are all the fish". I have been fishing all my life and have never seen bottom-dwelling fish so clearly that I would have been able to see that they had 2 pairs of barbules. However, it seems to be a prerogative of the more southerly rivers to be able to regularly spot fish in the water. Around here we have to rely on more subtle skills! I have not seen the southern rivers but I assume this is a result of different average depth, water colour and perhaps most importantly the colour of the river bed.
By the way, you might be interested to know that neither barbel not grayling are native to the rivers which flow south and west. Their only indigenous habitat in this country is these Yorkshire rivers which I fish, which flow to the North Sea. This is because these rivers were once part of the 'European' river system which existed before the North Sea.

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by Airehead

Gill -
firstly, re water voles - may I ask why you want to find the burrows, and have you seen voles in the water? because if not I would say there is no point in looking for burrows.

Secondly, re 25cm fish - as I said, there is no loach or gudgeon so big. I agree with Lincs Y, I don't see what they could be other than small barbel but they are not blotchy. Maybe this was the light? Sunlight through ripples gives that effect. How brown/bronze/green they look depends on their age, the light, the colour of the river bed and the whole situation (On one of my very rare visits to a commercial fishery I caught a barbel in still, strongly coloured water and it was an anaemic silver. Usually, the clearer the water normally is, the more colour the fish develop). Barbel have 2 pairs of barbules.

Thirdly - it sounds to me that you are the person to solve your question of "where are all the fish". I have been fishing all my life and have never seen bottom-dwelling fish so clearly that I would have been able to see that they had 2 pairs of barbules. However, it seems to be a prerogative of the more southerly rivers to be able to regularly spot fish in the water. Around here we have to rely on more subtle skills! I have not seen the southern rivers but I assume this is a result of different average depth, water colour and perhaps most importantly the colour of the river bed.
By the way, you might be interested to know that neither barbel not grayling are native to the rivers which flow south and west. Their only indigenous habitat in this country is these Yorkshire rivers which I fish, which flow to the North Sea. This is because these rivers were once part of the 'European' river system which existed before the North Sea.

I'm an environmental consultant so as a part of my job I check site for protected species on land I am usually unfamiliar with. The best and quickest way to find water voles is to systematically search for signs of them - burrows, latrines, feeding stations etc and this is often easier from the water.

There could have been two pairs of barbels but I might be wrong, I'm trying to remember from memory. I didn't have my camera on me as the brook is deep in places and I didn't want to risk ruining my camera if I fell over (which happens a lot when you are wading up a brook). The fish was definately blotchy, it was shallow water and they swam passed my feet so I got a reasonable view, and looking in my observer's book of fish Gudgeon do seem the most likely! 25cm is again an approximation from memory.

Oh and i will take pictures of fish wherever I can to add to the Gallery but I had just thought since there were a few anglers on this site that they may have more chance to sit and observe the fish that swim by than I do, plus I am only one person. No one has to take pictures....I was just noticing that there were very few in the Gallery and how my field guides for fish are rubbish - it just seemed a big gap that anglers might be able to fill!

Yes I think the fish communities of our rivers are probably quite different today to what they may have been in the past.

[Airehead]

Originally Posted by Gill Catton

The best and quickest way to find water voles is to systematically search for signs.

My preoccupation with seeing them in the water is a result of my younger days by the river, when voles were very common. They could always, and I do mean always, be seen swimming across the river and it is for sure the quickest way then to see a vole was simply to sit by the river for a little while. Their eyesight is not very good and they would dive only if very close and you made an obvious movement. But I must admit, now that they are not so common, the last signs I have seen of them has been footprints in mud by the River Nidd. But of course, they don't last long.

Originally Posted by Gill Catton

The fish was definately blotchy,.

The fish is going to have to remain a mystery. 25cm is in english nearly a foot. There is no gudgeon anywhere near this, and they are definitely not blotchy. A 6ins gudgeon would be very big and that is only 15cm. I suspect that it is (yet another) case of metric being misleading because it robs you of a scale that is useful for estimation. 'Nearly a foot' has positive meaning (if you are familiar with it) whereas 'guess a metric number' does not.

[Alan]

Erm...you wouldn't get far doing a Water Vole survey if you just sat and watched for them all day, especially as they are mostly nocturnal. You estimate populations by counting active burrows and finding signs - droppings, chewed vegetation etc.

[Lincs Yellowbelly]

Originally Posted by Airehead

Gill -
firstly, re water voles - may I ask why you want to find the burrows, and have you seen voles in the water? because if not I would say there is no point in looking for burrows.

Secondly, re 25cm fish - as I said, there is no loach or gudgeon so big. I agree with Lincs Y, I don't see what they could be other than small barbel but they are not blotchy. Maybe this was the light? Sunlight through ripples gives that effect. How brown/bronze/green they look depends on their age, the light, the colour of the river bed and the whole situation (On one of my very rare visits to a commercial fishery I caught a barbel in still, strongly coloured water and it was an anaemic silver. Usually, the clearer the water normally is, the more colour the fish develop). Barbel have 2 pairs of barbules.

Thirdly - it sounds to me that you are the person to solve your question of "where are all the fish". I have been fishing all my life and have never seen bottom-dwelling fish so clearly that I would have been able to see that they had 2 pairs of barbules. However, it seems to be a prerogative of the more southerly rivers to be able to regularly spot fish in the water. Around here we have to rely on more subtle skills! I have not seen the southern rivers but I assume this is a result of different average depth, water colour and perhaps most importantly the colour of the river bed.
By the way, you might be interested to know that neither barbel not grayling are native to the rivers which flow south and west. Their only indigenous habitat in this country is these Yorkshire rivers which I fish, which flow to the North Sea. This is because these rivers were once part of the 'European' river system which existed before the North Sea.

Are Barbel not native to the Trent then Airehead? i always thought they were