niall_b73 41 Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 PIKE REPRODUCTION Pike in weedAs a rule of thumb, pike heavier than ten pounds tend to be exclusively female, male pike larger than twelve pounds are uncommon, but pike under eight pounds could be of either sex. Female pike are capable of producing a large number of eggs. For example a twenty pounder could lay some 200,000 eggs. Females contain eggs at some stage of development for most of the year. Egg development begins during the summer months following the springtime spawn. During the following winter and spring the eggs mature and swell by absorbing water. The spawning trigger depends on various factors including water temperature which is usually between 8 and 12 degrees celsius when spawning takes place. Male pike tend to arrive at the spawning ground before the females, selecting shallow areas of water where there ample submerged water plants or emergent vegetation - reed, rushes or even flooded areas of grass can be used. There is some evidence of loyalty to particular spawning sites, mainly in rivers; pike use the same feeder ditches year after year. It may even be that small pike return in later life to the places where they were hatched. Female pike may fail to shed their eggs when there are large temperature fluctuations during the spring. Unlike some other coarse fish they appear to be incapable or re-absorbing these eggs - which can constitute 20% of their body weight - and by early summer these fish often die. Fertilised pike eggs hatch after 20-24 days but fry survival may be very low. For example, in one study of 1.25 million eggs produced 180 pike lived to one year of age, fifty lived to two years, 39 to 3 years, 20 to 4 years and only nine survived to five years of age. Recruitment to the pike population is largely determined by survival of the younger stages in the life cycle, rather than the number of parents or the quantity of spawn which is shed. Predation and starvation are the prime causes of larval mortality. The extent of pike on pike predation has particularly important consequences for the survival of pike during their juvenile stages. Figures of 79% of losses of young pike through cannibalism have been reported. PIKE LIFESPAN Pike in lily padsIn common with most coarse fish, pike have a normal 'growing span' of 12-15 years only. Ageing from scale reading will 'under-age' old pike which have ceased growth because no growth checks will be recorded on the scales. Anglers observations have shown that pike do not all die once growth ceases; we know that some fish can live on well into their 20s and possibly older. For example one fish which was tagged at a weight of 16.75lbs and with a length of 36.5in was aged at 14 years. Six years later it was re-caught weighing and measuring exactly the same! Pike are known to live to a maximum of fifty years. RECOGNITION OF INDIVIDUAL PIKE Recognisable markingsAdult pike have markings which change very little and are as individual as fingerprints, enabling the patterns to be used to recognise individual fish. This has been proved by dye marking pike and photographing them prior to release and again on recapture*. Knowing this enables anglers to monitor the survival, movements and growth of pike as they are recaptured over time. The markings are not identical on each side of a pike, so it is essential to compare pictures taken of the same flank of the fish in question. The markings display the most distinctive shapes and spot clusters around the tail and anal fin area, around the pelvic and pectoral fins, and on the cheeks - although markings on the flanks can also be easily recognisable. Compare the markings in two or three of these regions to ensure positive identifications as different photographs do not always show the markings in all areas equally well. Spot typesPike exhibit three basic types of markings which are all variations of the shape and size of their pale spots; round or stellate spots, oval spots, and longitudinal bars (which could be considered elongated oval spots). It is uncommon for pike to exhibit more than one spot type in one particular water - although not unknown. DIET OF THE PIKE A pike and it's previous meals!Newly-hatched pike fry live on their yolk sacs for several weeks but they need to capture invertebrate food when they are 10-12mm long. By the time they have grown to 5-6cm long, pike tend to switch to a diet of fish. This explains why pike usually spawn sometime before their prey: the young pike have grown large enough to eat other species of fish just as they hatch! The dietary requirements of pike are also and, in general terms, a diet comprising between 13oz and 1.5lb of prey fish per pound of pike per annum is needed to merely keep the pike alive (their 'maintenance ration'). Where pike are undergoing normal growth 2.5-3.5lb of prey fish per pound of pike per annum is a common ration which ensures such normal growth. Conversion from prey flesh to pike flesh can also be predicted, and the ratio between weight gain and total food consumed during normal growth is often between 1:5 and 1:10. Prey choice seems to be governed entirely by its availability to pike. However, there is some evidence that pike may select soft-rayed species in preference to fish bearing spines. Although there are reports that spined fish (usually perch or related species) are the dominant prey of pike. For example on one water analyses of the stomach contents of large pike revealed substantial numbers of perch and relatively few trout. That pike tend to be opportunist, rather than selective, predators is supported by the fact that the stomach contents listed by several workers comprised nearly the entire range of fish species present at the studied sites. For example where perch and char are present the pike tend to feed on perch for most of the year, but char figure highly in the pike's diet during the autumn. The explanation is that the char move from their usual deep-water habitat and shoal in shallow, marginal areas in readiness for spawning at this time of year! The scientific literature does not support the notion that pike will always 'prefer' a particular prey species irrespective of its abundance. This undermines the theory that pike will actually select salmon or trout in game fisheries; pike tend to eat whatever they can catch most easily. PIKE/PREY RELATIONSHIPS Pike stalking ruddThe data from numerous sources demonstrate that on stable fisheries there is a weight-to-weight relationship between predatory fish and prey which are available to them. Pike biomasses of 10-13% of that of their available prey have been cited. Using the ratio of 1:10, one can predict that 300lb of prey fish would be able to support some 30lb of pike without any long term adverse effects on the abundance of either type of fish. This balance is a so-called dynamic equilibrium. It will swing one way or another in response to entirely natural phenomena (such as spawning success or outbreaks of disease). Equally, if the balance swings markedly in favour of one 'side' ecological pressures ensure that, eventually, it will swing back in the other direction. If this were not the case there would be countless examples of fisheries in which pike have become dominant or have totally eradicated the stocks of prey fish, and this would be a continuing situation on unmanaged waters. There is only one known example of pike eating themselves 'out of house and home' and eradicating their prey. PIKE CULLS: THE TRUTH Pike eats Pike!The consequences of pike culling exercises have been well documented and they are widely acknowledged by fishery managers. After an initial decline in the number and overall biomass of pike, there is often a rapid recovery in the size of the population as a result of successful spawning and improved rates of survival of small pike. Where culls occur every few years the net result may well be that the pike biomass recovers to its pre-culling status, although this often consists of more, but smaller, pike. Selective culling of the smaller pike appears to be more successful. If large pike are retained in situ they are able to prey on and control the numbers of their smaller brethren. Certain authors have reported the density-dependent regulation of pike populations through cannibalism. One Dutch scientist confirmed that the biomass of small pike, especially young-of-the-year fish, depended on the abundance of larger individuals present in shallow fisheries. On small bodies of water where culling is efficient, intense and continuous, it is logical to conclude that pike numbers can be controlled and the numbers of prey fish may increase - sometimes with adverse consequences on their growth and health. On larger bodies of water maintaining a pike cull becomes increasingly difficult and expensive. Fisheries scientists acknowledge that at least 30, and perhaps 70 percent or more, of the pike biomass must be removed annually to prevent the rapid recovery of a pike population to its pre-culling size. An american scientist has estimated that at least 25% of the individual pike had to spawn (and, therefore, had to be present) to maintain the pike population. Where culling is not efficient, intense or continuous, the pike population can rapidly regain its former biomass at the expense of the average size of the fish. It has been pointed out that "Practical experience on many waters has shown, that when most large pike are removed from a lake, there is an 'explosion' of young pike surviving subsequently". It is sobering to remember that since the last glaciation, some 10,000 years ago, British pike have not succeeded in eradicating their prey from any known fishery (bar one)..., something which cannot be said of mankind! A REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR PIKE CULLS - prepared by - Dr Bruno Broughton B.Sc. (Hons), Ph.D., F.I.F.M. Fisheries Management Consultant PAC Scientific Adviser Latest Update: 12 November 2001 Preface This article is the latest version of what started as a briefing paper back in the early 1980s. Updated several times, it is intended to provide a factual, dispassionate summary of aspects of the biology of pike and  in particular  what happens when they are culled. Its main use is as heavyweight ammunition to use against individuals and organisations who believe that the only good pike is a dead one. PAC committees, to good effect, continue to employ the paper for just this purpose. Feel free to use some or all of the information if you get entangled with pike haters or ill-informed fishery managers. Any additional data or ideas for future expansion would be greatly welcomed. 1.0: General Comments On Management Principles There are a wide variety of physical, chemical and biological factors which influence fish populations in exploited fisheries. Where both predators and prey are present, factors which increase fish numbers include:- * immigration * natural recruitment (successful spawning) * stocking, be it planned, accidental or illegal. Factors which decrease fish numbers include:- * emigration * pollution * disease and parasitism * 'natural' mortalities * predation - by the same species, other fish or other animals * removals, either deliberate (cropping/culling) or theft * angling, through deliberate or accidental actions. In assessing the reason(s) for changes in the status or composition of fish populations it is important that each of these factors is considered. All too often, those charged with managing fisheries draw cause-and-effect conclusions based on prejudice, hearsay or inadequate data. Historically, the persecution of pike in British fisheries was a case in point, based on the fallacious notion that if left to their own devices, the pike would eat all of the other species to extinction. With improved knowledge and its wider dissemination to anglers, attitudes have changed rapidly in the last few decades. It is fair to state that the far greater protection afforded to pike has not been accompanied by a decline in the quality of fishing for non-pike species. Were this not the case, there would undoubtedly be a substantial groundswell of angling opinion in favour of rescinding pike conservation measures and resuming widespread pike culls... which there is not. Scientists and anglers in many other countries, notably in some other western European nations and in North America, share this more enlightened attitude to pike. 2.0: Specific & Relevant Scientific Information The data from numerous sources demonstrate that on stable fisheries there is a weight-to-weight relationship between predatory fish and the prey which are available to them. This finding is in direct agreement with the original assertion of Johnson (1949) and the detailed pond experiments conducted by Swingle (1950). The latter author found that in ponds which maintained a balanced predator/prey relationship over prolonged periods, this ratio usually lies between 1:1.4 and 1:10. In his review of a large quantity of data derived from eastern European predator fisheries, Popova (1967) cites pike biomasses of 10-13 per cent of that of their available prey; Kell (1985) lists survey data for the Sixteen Foot drain which give a relationship of 12 per cent; and Templeton (1995) recommends that pike fisheries should be stocked with prey fish at a weight of eight times that of the pike. When Broughton (unpublished data) analysed the catch statistics from several hundred scientific surveys of still and running water fisheries in the Midlands, an average weight ratio between pike and their available prey was found to be approximately 1:10. Using the ratio of 1:10, one can predict that 300lb of prey fish would be able to support some 30lb of pike without any long-term, adverse effects on the abundance of either type of fish. A useful analogy is to imagine that the prey fish represent a sum of money which is invested. In effect, pike are consuming the interest, leaving the capital sum untouched. This balance is a so-called dynamic equilibrium - in other words, it will swing one way or another in response to entirely natural phenomena (such as spawning success or outbreaks of disease). Equally, if the balance swings markedly in favour of one 'side', ecological pressures ensure that eventually it will swing back in the other direction (described in detail by Carlander 1958 and Anderson & Weithman 1978). If this were not the case, there would be countless examples of fisheries in which pike have become dominant or have totally eradicated the stocks of prey fish, and this would be a continuing situation on unmanaged waters. I have reviewed a huge volume of the published scientific literature on pike in the British Isles, Europe, North America and elsewhere, and there appears to be just one example where pike had 'eaten themselves out of house and home' (Munro1957). Ricker (1952) described three types of numerical relationships between predatory fish and their prey. Mann (1982), Kell (1985) and other authors have concluded that pike probably fall into Ricker's Type B model, in which: "Predators at any given abundance take a fixed fraction of prey species present, as though there were captures at random encounters". This means that predation is dependant on the numbers of prey, rather than the numbers of predators. The dietary requirements of pike are also predictable and have been studied by several authors (e.g. Kipling & Frost 1970). In general terms, a diet comprising between 13oz-1lb of prey fish per pound of pike per annum is needed to merely keep the pike alive (the 'maintenance ration'): Johnson (1966) lists an average figure equivalent to 1.4lb/lb/year, with a range of 1.3-1.8, whereas Mann (1982) reports an annual value of 0.8/g/g. (Note, however, that there is a positive correlation between food consumed and increasing temperature, and higher values have been recorded for pike kept under unnaturally-warm experimental conditions.) Where pike are undergoing normal growth, 2-3.5lb of prey fish per pound of pike per annum is a common ration. For example, in his study of the Middle Level drainage system, Kell (1985) calculated that the annual consumption of prey fish by pike was 254 per cent of their body weight; and Popova (1978) cites studies which revealed figures of 341-344 per cent in the Volga delta and 270-340 per cent in Rybinsk Reservoir. Conversion from prey flesh to pike flesh can also be predicted and the ratio between weight gain and total food consumed during normal growth is often between 1:5 and 1:10. Popova (1978) lists a figure of 1:8.8 and Mann (1982) calculated a ratio of 1:6.6. The selection of prey by pike has been the subject of numerous studies. Some authors have noted that as pike grow larger, they eat larger prey (e.g. Diana 1979), although small prey are still consumed; other authors (e.g. Willemsen 1967) have concluded that it is the relative abundance of prey species which determines the diet of pike. Popova (1967) concluded that prey choice appeared to be governed solely by its availability to pike. If offered a choice of prey species, there is some evidence that pike may select soft-rayed species in preference to fish bearing spines (Mauck & Coble 1971). However, other authors report that spined fish - usually perch or related species - are the dominant prey of pike (see Johnson 1966, Diana 1979). Flickinger & Clarke (1978) reported heavy predation by newly introduced pike on bluegills (a spined species), whereas there was no change in the numbers of carp and black crappies (soft-rayed and spined species respectively). In Llandegfedd Reservoir, South Wales, analyses of the stomach contents of large pike revealed substantial numbers of perch and relatively few trout (Welsh Water Authority, unpublished data). That pike tend to be opportunist, rather than selective piscivores is supported by the fact that the stomach contents listed by Frost (1954) and Mann (1982) comprised nearly the entire range of fish species at both studied sites, Lake Windermere and the River Frome. Seasonal changes in the diet of pike do take place in response to the availability of prey (described by Lawler 1965 and many other authors). However, the scientific literature does not support the notion that pike will always 'prefer' a particular prey species - irrespective of its abundance - an allegation often levelled at pike in salmonid fisheries. Kell (1985) concluded that recruitment to the pike population is largely determined by survival of the younger stages in the life cycle, rather than the number of parents or the quantity of spawn which is shed, with predation and starvation being the prime causes of larval mortality. Clepper (1975) also failed to identify any correlation between the size of the spawning stock and subsequent year-class strength for a variety of predatory fish, including pike. The extent of intraspecific (pike on pike) predation has been noted by many authors (e.g. Toner & Lawler 1969, Pitcher 1980), and this has particularly important consequences for the survival of pike during their juvenile stages. Bry & Gillet (1980) report figures of 79 per cent losses of young pike through cannibalism; and Wright & Giles (1987) discovered that pike fry contributed 27.3 per cent of the number of fish in the diet of small pike kept in experimental ponds. 3.0: Can Culls Be Justified Scientifically? The consequences of pike culling exercises have been reported by several authors, including Otto (1979), Bouquet (1979) and Kipling (1983), and they are widely recognised by fishery managers. After an initial decline in the number and overall biomass of pike, there is often a rapid recovery in the size of the population as a result of successful spawning and improved rates of survival of small pike. Where culls occur every few years, the net result may well be that the pike biomass recovers to its pre-culling status, although this often consists of more but smaller pike (e.g. Kipling & Frost 1970). Kell (1985) reported the impact of pike and zander culling on the Middle Level drainage system in East Anglia, where the pike standing crop of 5.0kg/ha at the end of culling (1981) more than quadrupled, to 21.6kg/ha - its approximate pre-cull status - by 1983... just two years after culling ceased. Selective culling of the smaller fish appears to be more successful. If large pike are retained in situ, they are able to prey on and control the numbers of their smaller brethren (Popova 1978). Other authors have reported the density-dependent regulation of pike populations through cannibalism. For example, Grimm (1981) confirmed that the biomass of small pike, especially 0+ fish, depended on (and was inversely related to) the abundance of larger individuals present in shallow Dutch fisheries. On smaller bodies of water where culling is efficient, intense and continuous, it is logical to conclude that pike numbers can be controlled, and the numbers of prey fish may increase - sometimes with adverse consequences on their rates of growth and health. On larger bodies of water, this becomes increasingly difficult and expensive. Many British water-supply reservoirs are stocked with rainbow trout, and those where pike are present have been subject to a variety of culling methods spanning several decades. Again, improved trout survival rates can be achieved where culling is intense and continuous, but the manpower costs associated with culling can be substantial (Broughton & Fisher 1981). The cost of pike culling measures at Llandegfedd Reservoir were also cited as a major constraint (Welsh Water Authority, unpublished report), and scientists there concluded that it was not feasible to eradicate pike. Because pike removals are effective only where they are carried out intensively, at considerable cost, trout fishery managers have been forced to rationalise culling activities. Nowadays, it is acknowledged that at least 30 and, perhaps, 70 per cent or more of the pike biomass must be removed annually to prevent the rapid recovery of the pike population to its pre-culling size (NRA, pers. comm.). Latta (1972) estimated that at least 25 per cent of the individual pike had to spawn (and, therefore, had to be present) in order that the pike population be maintained. In addition to the costs of such exercises, other drawbacks have become evident. These include an increased incidence of 'poorly-conditioned' trout and a reduction in their rates of growth - noted in Grafham Water by Broughton & Fisher (1981). The effects on the fish population of the removal of large pike are widely acknowledged by fisheries scientists. In reporting the findings of a highly-controversial cull of pike in the Fenland drains, Kell (1985) concluded that: "A lack of older fish (pike) will lead to increased survival of the younger ones and a recovery of the predator stocks". Mann (1982) argued that the practice of removing large pike, which are heavily cannibalistic on fish of less than two years old, would actually increase losses of young salmon since it is the small pike which are primarily responsible for such predation. Where culling is not efficient, intense or continuous, the pike population can rapidly re-gain its former biomass at the expense of the average size of the fish (reported by many authors, including Mann 1982 and Kipling 1983). When summarising the findings of some 20 years investigative research on gravel pit fisheries, Giles (1992) pointed out that: "Practical experience on many waters has shown... that when most large pike are removed from a lake there is an 'explosion' of young pike surviving subsequently." Moore (1982) questioned the scientific rationale for removing any coarse fish from lowland trout fisheries, concluding that most "... support large coarse fish populations without serious detriment, apart from their 'nuisance value' to anglers who catch them." The only tenable scientific justification for pike culling is where there is a long-term commitment of resources (manpower and funds) to maintain the exercise. In the real world, there will always be a conflict between the economic (cost) and scientific (effectiveness) arguments. For culling to be economic, there must be demonstrable cost benefits which exceed culling costs. If there are sound economic reasons for culling, this raises an obvious question: why is such work not being funded at present? I doubt that any administration would fail to 'invest' a sum of 'X' into such projects if there was a predictable financial return of 'X + Y' (or 'value added'). Moreover, one would expect studies to have been performed to demonstrate the cost benefits of other means of obtaining angling income. For example, there may be a greater economic benefit from (i) ceasing pike culls, (ii) promoting the conservation of large pike, and (iii) improving access to the fisheries by pike anglers. Because the beneficial ecological effects of intense pike culling are temporary unless culling is conducted ad infinitum, it follows that any benefits will be equally temporary. This begs the question: when funding ceases, how will culling be maintained and who will pay for it? The Effect of Pike Removal A synopsis of published scientific data. The relationship between any fish predator and it's prey is perhaps best described by the comprehensive experiments reported by 'Swingle 1950'. These involved the study of predator  prey relationships in 89 separate ponds, containing fish populations that had been established for between 2 and 30 years. In his definition of balance, Swingle concludes that this implies a combination of species. Including at least one piscivorous (carnivorous) species. The studies on the status of the ponds 'balanced or unbalanced' revealed that the predator  prey ratio, by weight of balanced ponds was between 1:1.4 to 1:10; 77% of the best 'balanced' populations had ratios of between 1:3 and 1:6. Conversely, 'unbalanced' populations had ratios of between 1:0.06 and 1:63; most unbalanced populations had a relatively small weight of predators in relation to the weight of prey. It appears that the weight of prey present is a function of the fertility of the water, whereas the weight of predators is, within limits dependant on the weight of prey fish species present. The most exhaustive work undertaken in Britain has taken place on Lake Windermere, where pike have been removed for scientific purposes since the 1940s. The results are complex, but can be summarised, see the following: There was an initial drop in the NUMBERS of pike but these have remained relatively stable for many years. The average size of the pike has fallen. Their speed of growth has increased. Food availability (rather than the size or species of prey) controls diet. The only species in the lake to show unequivocal upturn in its numbers is Char. This species is particularly vulnerable to pike predation when seasonal shoals are formed. Pike cannibalism is reported as 'rare' with individuals of less than 16" normally being taken. Other studies reveal a higher incidence of cannibalism  Toner (1969) records that small pike formed 25% - 32% of the food of other small pike. Otto (1979) studied the effect of pike removal on a Swedish lake, defining three phases: A brief initial phase in which the proportion of large pike increased (due, presumably to the high susceptibility of small pike to capture or to an increase in growth rate of remaining pike). A phase in which the number of small fish increased in number (due to reduced cannibalism and /or increased intraspecific i.e. pike on pike competition). A phase in which small and large pike numbers do not change. It is worth reporting that the weight of pike present did not change markedly. Other studies relating to pike removal shed few new facts. There appears to be NO reports of studies on the effect of removing only large pike or indeed, returning only large pike. It is interesting that many studies on pike have been conducted into the best methods of conserving /stocking this species. Bouquet (1979), records ways in which Dutch fishery management work focuses on maintaining high levels of pike and zander in their fisheries carryout annual stockings to maintain their numbers. Several other facts are worthy of note: 1. There are no reported instances where pike have reduced the levels of prey fish to unacceptable proportions. 2. Pike are an indigenous species in Britain (not Ireland) and have been living in balance with their food for as long as they have been present many thousands of years. 3. Predation on wildfowl by pike is rare, and can be matched (or exceeded) by water bird predation on pike fry and eggs. 4. Evidence from countries where pike and fish-eating birds like Ospreys etc are present, does not suggest that such birds were ever a major controlling factor of pike numbers. 5. It is very difficult to totally eradicate pike from any water. Generally this is biologically only desirable when prey species do not breed successfully i.e. trout and some carp, Stillwater fisheries or where other forms of prey control can be successfully practised. If pike predation can be replaced by say netting and removing prey fish or by angler's killing a percentage of their catch, these could constitute a substitute for pike predation. Population dynamics are, however, improperly understood and it is likely that these substitutes would often fail to reproduce the natural control of numbers and sizes naturally produced with pike predation. 6. In order to increase the numbers of non-predatory fish present in a water, effort and resources would be better expended on increasing water fertility and habitat diversity rather than haphazard pike removal. Indeed if the survival of prey species is paramount, it would be wise to radically improve methods of fish handling, unhooking and retention, which often produce high mortalities. i.e. if you are THAT concerned about numbers of roach etc present, scientific studies suggest that you'd be better advised to ban keepnets and insist on barbless hooks rather than instigate a pike cull. 7. Pike are and can be demonstrated to be a popular and valuable asset in many fisheries. Demand for pike fishing of good quality is great, and pike anglers make a significant contribution to the budgets of water authorities and angling clubs. If the pike fishing is poor, pike anglers will go elsewhere taking their valuable financial contribution with them. 8. There has not been a single reported instance whereby the use of live or deadbait legally obtained from elsewhere has caused the spread of an infection or resulted in fish mortalities. all information supplied by "the pike anglers club of great britan" : http://www.pacgb.co.uk/index.html niall_b73 Quote Link to post
MoChara 1,632 Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 wow thats alot of information, it just shows how much info is available, good handy topic Quote Link to post
niall_b73 41 Posted February 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 well i hope it is usefull to someone niall_b73 Quote Link to post
Guest ROUGH COATED Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 FFUCK ME that's some writing there pal,good stuff Quote Link to post
poacher3161 1,766 Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 Well copied.A good informative book on the pike is pike and the pike angler by Fred Buller.atb dell Quote Link to post
Irish Lurcher 1,013 Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 Good post niall. Best book I ever read on pike is Predator becomes the Prey, great book. Quote Link to post
niall_b73 41 Posted February 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2010 and also: Pike Latin name: Esox lucius british Record weight: 46lb 13 oz caught from Llandegfedd Reservoir in Wales by R. Lewis in 1992. Distribution: One of the most widespread of all freshwater fish. Found throughout Northern Europe and North America, the pike is a fish of the temperate waters of the Northern Hemisphere. In the UK, pike can be found in every county of England, except Cornwall and throughout most of Scotland, Wales and Ireland. Being the main apex predator found in freshwaters, pike are not as common as other fish. It has previously been estimated that, on average, most fisheries can sustain one pound of pike for every pound of fodder fish. Features: Pike cannot be mistaken for any other fish in British waters. From their mottled green appearance, sleek body and armoury of razor sharp teeth, the whole body of the pike is designed for hunting down live fish. Pike are ambush predators, mounting a lightening quick attack that lasts only a few seconds. All of the fins of the pike are positioned well back on the body, giving them maximum acceleration from a standing start when lunging at prey. Diet: Once pike reach a length of approximately 10 centimetres they become almost totally piscivorous. Large pike may also take the occasional water bird, or frog, but for the most part their diet is made up of fish up to one third their own body length. In extreme environments pike may feed almost exclusively on their own kind. In some Highland lochs, where pike are the only fish species present, the small pike will feed on invertebrates and the larger pike will feed upon the small pike. In such environments the pike are very slow growing and reach much smaller maximum sizes than their lowland cousins. Spawning: Pike spawn during March and April in the shallow weedy margins of lakes and in the tiny overgrown backwaters of rivers. Male pike tend to arrive at the spawning sites a few days before the females and jockey for the best positions on the edges of the weed beds. When the females arrive they rest up in deeper water until conditions are perfect for spawning. The much larger females make their way up the marginal slope into shallow water attracting a number of small males. The males follow the female into shallow water where spawning can take place in water less than 15 centimetres deep. In large lakes pike will often spawn on grass that has been inundated by high water levels. By spawning on this temporary habitat the eggs are relatively safe from predatory invertebrates and receive the full force of the warmth of the sun. Growth: In most fisheries pike grow very quickly. From the time they hatch to the end of growth in October they will reach a size of fifteen centimetres and be feeding solely on other fish. Pike are relatively short lived, living for perhaps only fifteen years. The fish effectively double in weight during the early years, only slowing in most fisheries when they reach a weight of ten pounds or more. In exceptional circumstances, generally where food is very abundant, such as in trout fisheries, the large fish will continue to grow right through their lives. Male pike rarely reach a weight of more than eight pounds. All large pike are females. As female pike may contain several hundred thousand eggs; their large size is essential to store such a huge mass. Even so, the eggs may account for 25% of the weight of the fish during the Spring period. Although most pike fishing is carried out in the Winter months, pike feed hardest and put on their weight during the Summer. Like all coarse fish, growth cannot take place during the cold conditions found in Winter. Pike are much more active in the Summer and may become highly nocturnal, or crepuscular, feeding when light conditions are low and they are best able to creep up on their prey Quote Link to post
poacher3161 1,766 Posted February 22, 2010 Report Share Posted February 22, 2010 That record pike i believe was caught in oct i wonder how mutch it would have weighed in febuary full of spawn??atb dell Quote Link to post
siskin 4 Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 sat and read this post early this morning gives you a bit to think about, i have never gave much thought to recognition and identifying diffrent fish like you would carp,thanks for puting it up Quote Link to post
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.