Hi guys,

Now a couple of months back a water I fish was treated to kill off the weed. The fishing since then has been dire over the summer and is still hard going now.

Previously I was landing an average of 3 carp a night and losing maybe one or two due to the dense weed. At the moment I'm struggling to get a run every 24hours. Everyone on there is struggling...for instance out of 18 guys on friday night, only 3 landed carp! Very very bad going for this lake and especially this time of year.

Due to the treatment there is absolutely no weed except some dead stuff on the bottom and the water is pea soup with about 1 foot vis. Before it was always gin clear and very very weedy.

My question is why have the carp reacted like this? Does anyone know if the chemicals affect them biologically speaking? Will there sight be impaired, not being used to the change of water colour? And has anyone else experienced this??

I really am scratching my head!

_________________
"Working is the curse of the angling classes"

I know Linear fisheries has decided to stop doing it, they have been dragging the lakes instead and the fishing has been OK

_________________

One effect weed treatment can have is that all of that carp fodder that lives in it while its alive suddenly drops to the deck, they might be gorging on naturals

_________________
Soar Valley Specialist Group
ECHO

And dragging it removes the grub

making them more dependant on bait

_________________

Several things happen when you treat a lake with weed killer...

First is the chemicals reating with the weed to kill it of, this uses oxygen to make the processes work...

Second is the weed dying off, again using up more oxygen...

Third is all the food, falls off the weed and is no longer protected. Creating a glut of naturals...

When the weed is far enough gone, it turns to a mush, which A, clouds the water and B, gives food to algea and small lifeforms, snails etc...

_________________


To be good at angling, you need at least one side of your fishing to be good...
And I'm real good at blanking...

The dead weed i did pull in had bloodworms, pea mussles and leeches in it and bubbles were coming up everywhere so they are feeding on something down there. I presumed that as the weed was dead, the majority of the naturals wouldnt beable to adapt and be killed off with it...obviously not. so maybe a naturals approach would be a better option. Will give it a try next time im down.

_________________
"Working is the curse of the angling classes"

Isn't the bubbles coming from the dead/dying weed releasing gas?

_________________
Bream me up snotty!

Mainly co2 and methane...

Fishing with naturals may be ok, but still better to go with single bright pops for this situation, otherwise its like fishing for a cow in a field with a blade of grass on the hook.

_________________


To be good at angling, you need at least one side of your fishing to be good...
And I'm real good at blanking...

The effects of removing the weed really do depend on how it is done and the environment (shallow, deep, on-line/off-line, bottom etc). So it can be pretty unique to each water.

However, generally you see an immediate drop in catches - you can put this down to either the change in environment (loss of cover, chemicals etc) or to the glut of naturals that has less cover. You see the same effect in waters which have been "chalked" to promote weed growth or to boost crustacian and invertibrate populations.

The season following is the difficult one to predict. I've seen catch rates increase exponentially and then drop off to nothing and the opposite happen.

Go with the obvious - find areas of cover, fish small baits, particles and naturals as this is what the fish will be feeding on - they will seek out cover if the weed cover is lost.

Hunt for remaining patches of weed - the fish will flock to these for cover and because they harbour naturals.

Another point to add here regarding the environmental impact weed treatment has on a water, but a little anecdotal evidence first.

I spoke to a very wise old owl of the EA whilst fishing on 'a Thames flood relief channel/tributary' the other day. Basically he had worked in the area for donkeys years, and like me he remembered the times before the old tributary was ''cut away" to form a widened and deepened Channel to thwart the flooding in the area around 25 years back. The relief channel still has 'running' water flowing through it and to all intent and purpose it remains a conduit for the headlands that fed the original river.

The Relief Channel is now regularly festooned with penny wort which bacially distorts the entire ecosystem which they are constantly trying to keep up with. They can't use any form of 'chemical' due to the environmental impact and they have to use machinary to remove it and it leaves the site on the back of 40yd (cubed) roll on/roll off containers.

This begs the general question, when lake owners use weed treatments to kill off the offending weed, what damage are they actually performing to their waters? Is it just a 'cheaper' way of dealing with the problem and simply less hassle for them, as they are still able to sell day tickets etc., because the lake still looks relatively similar and fishable? Put a chunk of a machine in there and anglers are going to think, "Sod that, I'm not fishing here, all that machinery and work going on is going to disturb my fishing!", therefore less bums on seats and probably more expensive to 'remove' in the short term?

Remember, the EA are not allowed to use weed treatment chemicals because of the environmental impact, and that on rivers that are being flushed through! Where does that leave a 5 acre lake? How long before that settles down?


Richard

_________________
To join ECHO

'Tis better to have hooked and lost, than never to have hooked at all'

Richard,

A little off track here, however your logic is a little skewed - your approach would be logical in a closed system - where man hasn't already interfered. However, through Organophosphate & other nitrification pollution from farm run off, waste etc, weed is artificially boosted.

Here's a run down on what can be done:

Weed cutting:

Manually: A huge task - with very little result - only small areas can be cleared and the effort involved in hauling in weed is unreal - but for small areas (ie, in front of swims) it can be used.

Machines:
Weed cutting machines are used - however, there are a limited number in the country - you actually need to pre-book 6, 12+ months in advance sometimes.

They only cut to a certain length (ie 6 or 12 inches from the bottom) and to do this need a flat bottom.

Once cut, light floods into the weedbed and the weed growth explodes from the established weed bed - you're back to square one in 3 months or less.

Herbicide:
There are basically two types of herbicide used, localised (granular or gel) and suspension. Localised herbicides are supposed to kill only the weed which comes into direct contact with the herbicide, herbicides in suspension are designed to kill all the weed (if dosed correctly).

You cannot put any chemicals into a river as it's an open system. (likewise if a stillwater is online).

Attempting to control weed with herbicides is IMO self defeating - as soon as the herbicide has done it's job and it is metabolised by the environment (which is what they are designed to do) the weed can reseed itself and you will get explosive weed growth again.

An alternative way is to convert the water from a weed based ecosystem to an algae based ecosystem. (not the stuff you see as a scum on the top of the water) but algae in suspension. This cuts down the light and so you stop weed growth. You then need to balance the system to stop the algae exploding or clumping up (Ultrasonics are used to do this in many cases).

The natural way? Canadian Pond weed for example runs on a 7 year cycle, so it starts growing, gets higher and more dense in the water column, cuts out the light to the lower weed levels, dies off and floats up to the top and then starts over again.

So, essentially, it's best not to mess with the natural balance - however, don't be under the illusion that it hasn't already been done by man with organophosphates etc.

Fishery owners need to strike a balance - depending on the stock, type of angler and type of venue - whether they intervene or let it run it's course. Angler's pressure often makes doing nothing (especially if it's a business) impossible.

Experienced carp anglers for example will find ways to fish in weed, inexperienced specimen anglers, pleasure anglers, match fishermen and float fishermen will raise hell if they bring a single strand of weed in.

Food for thought.

Rob

I remember years back, one club discussing the use of manure to cloud the water in order to lessen the weed...

Does this work? And what sort of quantities are involved???

_________________


To be good at angling, you need at least one side of your fishing to be good...
And I'm real good at blanking...

Manure would be used to cloud the water by promoting algae growth as it will add further nutrients to the water - I would have thouht this would be used in an algae based system as it would also boost weed growth.

Rather than being "skewed" in my logic Rob, my thinking tacks towards the 'commercial' balances private clubs/venues have to incorperate to continue putting "bums on seats". Weed proliferation and its management is an endless task for many and one that will continue to challenge those that manage 'those' venues, as the seasons become milder and legislation is slow in the making for the agricultural industry the 'problems' are only set to increase.

I have, however, experienced some woeful decision making on behalf of waters that are expedient in their water management programmes, that have seen fisheries stripped of their character and of their natural balances. Far too often decisions are made that lead to the detriment of a 'former healthy' fishery as it is the 'commercial' checks and balances (short-termism in many cases) that leads to rash decisions being made.

Far too often venues tip the 'natural balances' to suit the anglers at the expense of the eco-system and there are endless examples of financial expedience pushing ethics to one side to "bump" up the numbers paying to fish on the bank.

I don't manage a fishery - thank Christ - but I have witnessed and been party to much anecdotal evidence to suggest that many fisheries do just that, literally disregarding the mid to long term health of a fishery(s) for the sake of the till. Weed management is just one area where many venues disregard the ecological consequences of their actions for the sake of money.


Richard

_________________
To join ECHO

'Tis better to have hooked and lost, than never to have hooked at all'

Absolutely and you probably noticed a little devil's advoquate in my post. However, commercials for example are here as businesses, like them or not, they cannot afford to have a quiet few years whilst they wait for the weed cycle to complete.

In the ideal world, all fisheries would be the perfectly balanced ecosystem. In reality everything we do unbalanced that equation one way or another.

interesting thread, guys.
there is no doubt that a weedy water is a good environment for carp and naturals to thrive. we had to take the decision to treat all the weed and turn the lakes into an algae dominated water [rather than weed dominated].
the fish were sitting up in the weed 24/7, and by the end of the summer we could have 2/3's of the pegs closed due to top to bottom weed. the fish welfare had to be considered and i didnt want our anglers trying to bring fish in through impenetrable weed!
the carp were also covered with argulus [an external parasite] as the weed easily allows the parasite to attach to the carp with ease.

we have had to treat the dead weed with siltex to speed up the decomposition and stop the bottom from stinking. we have also added manure to increase the nutrient levels and boost the natural food in the lakes. we have also added barley straw to suppress the excessive algae growth and stabilise the summer oxygen levels and stabilise the day/night cycle. we have also started an extensive tree cutting operation [light wind, leaf litter].
talk about a "weed cycle" is like believing in fairies. if there is a nutrient source then the weed will thrive.

a few years later we now have a fantastic stock of fish, with carp in excellent condition. the fish are more reliant on anglers bait, but the lakes are also more fishable.
weed management is only part of the equation. there are many issues raised by treating the weed, but also by doing nothing!

_________________
...and so, my fellow members: ask not what your fishery can do for you - ask what you can do for your fishery!

Hi All.
I think robhale has made some valid points but people should sit back and think why the weed is being removed, is it being removed to allow anglers to fish or another reason such as it’s a danger to the fish or other aquatic life.
Over the years I have never shied away from fishing in weed and will normally opt to fish there as opposed to open water, so you now get the picture that I like weed.
Rob states that Canadian grows in seven-year cycles, well it may do in some waters but not others.
A number of things can change this, firstly it depends on daylight during the growing season, a lake near London in June will get far less light that a lake in the north of Scotland.
Secondly as pointed out some lakes get a constant supply of NPK differing in amounts depending on season and rain, others like mine get none as the water going in never comes in contact with the surrounding fields.
However whatever cycle the weed pattern follows if you break the cycle you can almost irradiate the problem weed and less invasive weeds will utilize the same nutriments.

I have over the years created a number of lakes and pools and one has given me serious problems with weed.
The lake in question is fed by a deep ground spring and has depths ranging from 1ft to 18ft and it lay fallow for two years before filling.
Whilst it was empty the ground was fertilized and limed and seeded ready for filling this being standard practice for lakes and ponds for hundreds of years.
When it was allowed to fill I planted it up with thousands of pounds worth of various aquatic plants and allowed these to get established before seeding the water with fish.
One day I noticed weed growing in the deeps and on examination I found this to be two sorts of weed not deliberately planted.
Within one year all the deeps were choked with the weed, a year later the whole lake was covered.
Now the problems really started, firstly the lilies were being choked out along with other wanted plants and then fish started to die due to a total crash in oxygen at night.
I started dredging huge areas and removed huge amounts of weed ton’s of it to be precise and this temporally got the problem sorted.
However it was an ongoing job as the weed grew back almost as quick as it was removed.
So during the winter following the start of dredging I removed as much weed as possible and followed this in spring by the use of chemicals on 50% of the water.
The following winter the same treatment was carried out but the other 50% of the lake was chemically treated.
Now a few years later I still have the same two weeds that grow denser in cycles but NEVER cover the whole lake and I have a great balance of aquatic weeds over the whole lake, something I believe I could not have achieved without the use of chemicals.

However as of 2010 this is all irrelevant as the weedkillers that were available for aquatic use have been banned in the whole EU and the chemical company’s have no intention of trying to find replacements as the market is far to small.

_________________
The fish we catch are not ours,they belong to those yet to be born.

LOL... I think it's a term used very loosely and TBH (I've never counted 7 years!), the time taken varies and the effects are relative - the main factors being light and nutrient availability. This doesn't make angling any easier, the bottom may be clear, but there's two foot of thick floating weed above it! If there is a source of additional nitrogen however - all bets are off!

Interesting points on removing some of the overhanging trees also - it's a very contentious subject with anglers - however the influence of wind-action and effect of leaf litter cannot be ignored.

Interested in your experience with Siltex - we chalked a water a number of years back to boost invertebrate growth - the fish have increased weight gain very nicely since. (We used a mix of fine and larger particles to stagger the effect over a number of seasons).

Interesting topic but has anyone given any thought to the nitrogen levels the fish crap out?

After eating our HNV (usually very high in protein) and fishmeal - high protein pellets, boilies and seed baits?

This has to have an effect as we are putting hundreds of kilos of bait in over the year?

Steve, that is also a factor, and 'carp-only' waters do not assist any such waterbody as an eco-system. Balanced fisheries, however, have a sustainable future, it's just that on many occasions it's finance that can dictate the the water's stocking to the detrement of of such fisheries in the mid to longterm.

Also, the reliance on fishmeals adds to the problems of our ever-increasing problems in the oceans sustainable resources, however small our direct contribution to the damage being commited in this regard. Other values in anglers baits - as you succinctly state - create imbalances also.

Like most situations that regard conservation, changing one 'component' of the chain of sustainability for the predicted betterment of the situation, usually creates problems somewhere else in that chain of 'cause and effect', there are however, some things that we could do, that although commercially challenging, would help to maintain/improve the situation. Don't hold your breath whilst money is 'King' however...


Richard

_________________
To join ECHO

'Tis better to have hooked and lost, than never to have hooked at all'

IMHO, don't worry about HNV baits introducing too much Nitrogen (God we worry about some weird stuff sometimes!).

It's debatable even if anglers bait has a quantifiable effect. Now I can see the logic in cutting down on *all* baiting if the water is near the level of an oxygen crash, is choked with an algal bloom, a few acres in size, 2foot deep and is filled in day-in-day-out, but otherwise - I wouldn't worry about it.

So if your right is just a coincidence that waters everywhere are getting weedier and weedier as carp fishing is becoming more and more popular.

If you own a fish tank or a pond you have to be very careful with the amount of food you put in as an imbalance happens very quickly.

If you dragged out all the weed in a lake, how much would it weigh (dry weight) compare this to the weight of boilies being put in - carp do not assimilate all the protein they eat - 90% is pooped out for other organisms to digest and use including weed.

Natural lakes get most of their nitrogen input from leaves which are broken down by bacteria > freshwater invertebrates > fish.

Just saying that the food web of a lake is very complex and a nitrogen increase from bait will have to have an effect. Its a bit naive to think otherwise.

I think there's a few bigger factors at work here, like for example, increase in fertiliser, increase in surface run off into lakes, increase in temperature...

This is going to sound a little flippantn(although it isn't meant to be), bur does your fish tank hold several million gallons of water? Have an open ecosystem? Have acres of surface area?

The main point here being you're talking about completely different scales, with different factors, whilst overlooking the more obvious ones. But that wasn't the question: it was specifically HNV baits, over others.

Sticking 2 tonnes of bait into a 2 acre shallow pond is not going to be good, but please read my previous post fully before drawing conclusions.

All the best

Rob

I think there's a few bigger factors at work here, like for example, increase in fertiliser, increase in surface run off into lakes, increase in temperature..

The fertilizer and the surface run off are valid points however if a significant amount of fertilizer entered the water it would cause algal blooms which is a potential serious problem and could kill everything in the lake.

Increase in temperature is false as its been dropping slightly in temp but the temp has been constant for longer (longer growing season) so will have an impact (does that make any sense?????).

This is going to sound a little flippantn(although it isn't meant to be), bur does your fish tank hold several million gallons of water? Have an open ecosystem? Have acres of surface area?

Not flippant and a valid point - BUT take somewhere like st johns at linear, there must be tonnes of bait going in there every year where does all this end up???

Rivers and lakes are becoming clearer, but are they cleaner? Is something killing off the algae and other organisms that cloud the water - allowing the weed grow? It very complicated and no doubt its many factors

Ha we could always fill up the lakes with grass carp as we all know they only eat weed

I think a lot of the weed growth we are getting today at ever increasing levels, can be put down to lakes maturing. Most lakes fished by carp anglers are relatively young, and the eco system has only really been running at full capasity for a short period of that time. Lakes dug in the fortie and fifties, didn't really get weed as an issue, till the seventies. Look at the boost in lakes bug in the last thirty years, and you'll see why lakes are becoming weedier. Its not bait, its maturity. Trouble is, a mature looking lake brings in the punters, but if its got weed, then the punters go home. Lakes that are only just growing into themselves, are the ones getting held back, as the anglers and fishery management are not used to it, so are not willing to put up with it.

Personally, it doesn't effect me one way or another, as I'll not be fishing thier water, but it does matter to the fishermen who do fish it. And owners that dont want thier fish dragged through tonnes of weed.

_________________


To be good at angling, you need at least one side of your fishing to be good...
And I'm real good at blanking...

You certainly can see the difference between a dedicated specimen angler and a pleasure fisherman or "instant carper".

My local specimen water is extremely weedy. On some summers you can walk most of the way across without getting your feet wet!

The dedicated guys fish in the weed, find the spots, make spots, adapt etc. The anglers who have come off of runs waters only tend to visit once, maybe twice. Unfortunately there are rarely enough of the first type of angler to support a club or commercial water.

Very interesting thread, and always a topical one.

Firstly, the theory of a 7 year weed cycle is not worth the paper it's written on, as i have known / fished and watched 20 lakes within 2 miles of my house, for the last 20 years, the lakes that have been left alone, with very little angling pressure (bait input) do have cycles in their weed growth, the ones that get fished all year round, every year, have no cycle whatsoever. This leads me to believe that the introduction of bait in it's many forms, which the carp then turn into fetilizer, which in turn feeds the weed.

Treatment of the weed, as i have witnessed, leads to massive algae growth, the water gets very coloured, the fishing becomes especially hard (for the reasons already mentioned), i have also seen this treatment have a detrimental affect on the other water plants present, such as lillies, reeds etc.

The only effective and none harmful treatment i have seen actually work, is a weed cutter. I saw this in use on an RDAA water 2 years ago, it solved the immediate proble, but the weed still came back the following year, so it is only a short term measure as Rob has stated.

Perhaps a better approach is to actually teach your fellow angler how to fish in the weed safely. Passing on the knowledge, that's how our sport survives, and it doesn't involve chemicals being put into the ecosystem.

_________________

Well said that man

_________________
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch

The trouble is, that it doesn't just effect the way carp anglers must fish...

Your average, non specimen hunter, just out to bend his float rod or quiver tip, hasn't the choice of using 20lb mainline and hooklink, and carefully balancing a maggot on a size 4 hook...

Ok, on carp dedicated waters, teaching how, without tge need to reduce the weed is great, but not on general coarse fisheries with a diverse healthy stock...

_________________


To be good at angling, you need at least one side of your fishing to be good...
And I'm real good at blanking...

if the weed treatment is only partial it will soon re-grow. if you want to treat all the weed then the nutrient in the water, and the released nutrient from the decaying weed will feed single celled algae.
your water will colour up. the naturals will be freely available to the carp and weight gained can be quite significant! the only trouble is sustaining the fishes weight! there is now less habitat for the naturals... on the plus side the water is now "easier" to fish, lads may fish with more bait, and the general condition of the fish can be better. less parasites such as argulus, etc, and less potential for mouth damage to the fish.
the fish will lose colour, but this is quite a natural process.

we took the decision to clear our lakes of weed several years ago. with the addition of siltex to speed up the decomposition of the thick sludge of dead weed, and the slow addition of manure to maintain a balance of nutrients to maintain algae [as opposed to weed re-establishing] and some barley straw to stabilise the oxygen levels [by limiting the overproduction of algae] we have now gotten to the stage where all the boxes are getting ticked.

_________________
...and so, my fellow members: ask not what your fishery can do for you - ask what you can do for your fishery!

Good post baitman.

If the lake has a productive bottom (silt etc) then this often holds a huge amount of invertebrate food for the fish. You can use ultrasonics to stop the algae from clumping and forming silkweed etc... This seems to be working on a local water to control the algae growth.