I think In the long run reproduction are more harmful to the environment then a simple skin mount of a fish would ever be?I know It sounds good catch and release?are you saying you can't even eat your fish and also mount the trophy?I've heard people say that too many big pike will be hard on the walleye the very thing people want to preserve?
Return to Beginners Category Menu
Thats full of things to comment on...
First the biology lesson... Pike dont really prey on Walleye - so thats right out. They dont even use the same nesting habitat so they dont compete there either. They prefer different habitats to live in... in short - they really dont have much to do with each other in nature so big pike being a detrimental factor to walleye just doesn't hold up to biological evidence. And who says that Walleye are the very things people want to preserve? Pike are more of a fighter and just as tasty =) Id go for Pike over walleye any day (ya just gotta get used to the slime and filleting out the Y bones). And Im not sure what kind of repros you are used to see being made, but most are done with alginate for the original cast which is the same stuff a dentist puts in his patients mouth, so eating it is completely possible. The fact is; small fish taste as good (arguably better) than large fish, so a responsible angler looking to maintain the future of North American fisheries will release larger fish not desireable for most mounts ANYWAY... I suspect these "people" that blame pike are anglers who aren't proficient at locating their quarry and so make a scapegoat of the pike to cover their own short comings. This often happens when birds go into hiding from hunting pressures then the frustrated inexperienced hunter blames foxes (yet no one sees the foxes - hehe). Again - they don't inhabit the same areas - they are each top predators in their respective waters. Sure some minor exceptions mat occur - Im sure some ppl have stories of finding a small walleye in apike bely and vice versa, but these are exceptions rather than the rule. I am quite skeptical whenever I hear someone debunking repros. Sure skin mounts still have their place for nostalgic reasons etc, but by and large, I cannot think of a single area wherein a skin mount is preferable to a repro. My personal theory is that since repros are just coming into the mainstream of taxidermy after having been around for decades; that there is still tension concerning them. Old vs new technologies etc. Some skin movers who do not know the porocess of making repros may feel threatenned by this 'new' technology and thus belittle it's numerous merrits. If this is not the case, I really can't see whya nyone would not opt for a repro, they excel in every category that comes to mind... BTW - most of the information concerning biology is gleaned from Scott and Crossman; Freshwater Fishes of Canada should anyone wish to learn the biology of these noble game fishes. =)
Raven;
I have to disagree with you on the fact that pike don't prey on walleye.They do!,and they also prey on perch, bass, bluegills,and sucker's,Ect.ect.as well as many other game fish.Next to the Musky, the Pike is the main predator of the lakes.Why do you think they call it the water wolf.But to say that the pike is going to depleate the walleye population,it's not going to happen.Take the numbers of eggs in an average female walleye,which is around 300,000 eggs,I don't think,even with the mortality of 1/3 to 1/4 of the fry loss.Is the Northern Pike going to depleate the population.And they do spawn the same time as the walleye.Except where the pike prefer the shallow bays,and certain river,and marshes to spawn.the Walleye prefer a more rocky bottom to spawn on.But the Walleye is definitly a big part of the pike's diet.
Coyote
I knew they preyed on all species you mentionned save Walleye. I know they compete for available food sources with walleye in transitional areas between adjoining habitats but to say they prey on walleye directly is news to me. Pike and Walleye tend to inhabit the same types of waters as they nest in; I've never caught pike in open rocky areas, nor have I hooked walleye in weedy back bays, so I never figured the two would meet in a place that pike would consider walleye prey items. In opportunistic occurances sure, but to identify walleye as a standard prey item? I did mention that exceptions do occur =) Poor luck for the walleye if this is true =) I looked up the diet of pike in the previously mentionned "fresh water fishes of Canada" (fish bible - strongly recommended for serious ichthiology buffs!) and in addition to the other things it states as prey - it is estimated by one contributor that pike take upwards of 1.5 million waterfowl annually! WOW! K - so thats not what we were talking about but I thought it was interesting trivia =)
I go to Canada every year for 2-weeks, we get 12doz of suckers and alot of balloons and fish for pike and muskies...we catch countless of both fish on the suckers,every so often you will see half of a 1-3 pound walleye,sometimes even a perch....the best was last year when we had this 20-25 pound pike busting water at everything under the sun, the next morning there were these loons and there little ones going across the back of the boat when out of no were this pike comes up and grabed both of the babys.....WOW is all I could say. So Im saying them fresh water sharks would and can eat everything it sets its mind to....
I have caught pike in open rocky areas and walleye in weedy back bays. This past July as a matter of fact. I fished Lake Savant in Northwestern Ontario. Walleye and Pike both inhabited the same areas. Althought the main forage was perch we caught some wounded walleye. It was obvious a pike attacked. The only fish in the lake are Pike,Walleye,Lake trout ( besides the forage fishes which were ciscos and yellow perch). It is too far north for bass. We caught the Pike with crankbaits around boulders.
Todd B
Raven;
Here in Michigan,It's not uncommon to catch walleye's in or near the weeds.And we catch pike near and around the rock jetties.And yes pike, and muskies do prey on waterfowl.They even make a musky lure's that resemble,young ducklings and muskrats.
Raven
That sounds a bit much don't you think? Can't think of a single reason where a skin mount is better, eh? Ask your customers and honest question. If they would rather have "their" fish "mounted", or do they want the "same" fiber glass "re-creation" that you've used on all your other customers? Pigs can fly right? By the way you "can't" call yourself a fish "taxidermist" if you think spray painting fiberglass is.
phony,fake,plastic banana,cheap,easy,synthetic,un-natural,un-unique,un-real,anyone can do them.
cannot think of a single area wherein a skin mount is preferable to a repro
I really can't see whya nyone would not opt for a repro, they excel in every category that comes to mind...
If you think they are fake, phony cheap n easy.. you have been seeing sum poor repros. Spraying fibreglass or spraying skin is irrelevant. You still paint skin mounts, so essentially - you are painting over a textured canvas. If that canvas is resin and not skin - its still up to the artist to know how to paint - thats what gives you the realism. Same with the fins etc - know your materials. Sum ppl do horrid jobs with fins and make them opaque when really a transclucent resin would be more appropriate to the task. By the same token - Ive seen some ugly as sin skin mounts that I would be embarassed to call my own or have in my home. It REALLY troubles me when ppl attack the appearance of something. It shows to me that they have not seen a wide variety of things and base their opinions on a few situations. If you notice; I made no comment on the APPEARANCE of skin vs repro because as I said, THAT is the domain of the artist - not the technology. Cur often uses repro heads on skin bodies and you cant see the distinction between the two - so to say they are fake looking is RIGHT out the window. As for "you Can't call yerself a taxidermist" if Im doin repros? Well if you take a moment to read the "what is taxidermy" page on this site - even there it says that modern trends are repros.. but I suppose you know better than them what constitutes taxidermy? And one last point.. I have never called myself a taxidermist... Never tried to even hint that I am. I am a professional mold maker and reproduction guy with an extended background in fish and wildlife biology and museum exhibit science. Never said anythin about taxidermy; but there is a lot of crossover within all these fields.
Raven
Your arguements that claim painting skin mounts is no different than painting "fiberglas blanks",is hollow unless you were painting over someone elses "finished" mount. Not to mention the vast differences with in the canvas as you put it. Did I claim that every skin mount done is better looking than all "synthetics"? Further ambiguity on your part. speaking of which, there isn't a sole (besides yourself)involved with this forum, that would agree that painting "re-po's" is defined as "Taxidermy". As a biologist, you should be able to break down this term for it's correct definition. It troubles me when professional mold makers think they know everything about taxidermy and attack it as something inferior. Especially when it's clear that they dont't have any experience mounting fish. Maybe they feel threatened by us taxidermists.
My last point, I didn't bring up artificial heads but since you did, I use them and have been for 22 years.
I think most people would sooner spend less on a skin mount then on a repro..?not all, but most I think.
I've heard of a couple cases were a pike has gone after a swimmer while there in the water...not very much but there is a odd time