Spinning for Brown Trout on Lough Corrib

Mau5

I was wondering about the brown trout season in lough corrib,
Is it too late in the season to be fishing brown trout with spinners or bait rather than fly? I have no experience in fly fishing but would like to go to lough corrib sometime before the end of september.

Thanks

coolhandspan

too late now, season closed. in my honest opinion spinning for troutr on corrib should be either banned orcatch and release only. i have done it myself but stocks are crashing hard and wrfb are afraid to admit it..............

demanufactured

They'll probably blame the pike and start gill netting again.....muck savages.

twomeys

What have happened stocks coolhands? My brother in law loves fishing there but I havent had the chance yet. Is it gone that bad?

experimenter

Why not head off to some stockie place, pay a few €€€ and spin there and give those poor brownies a break..

fisherking

Spinning in somewhere like the corrib is shameful behaviour
Learn to fly fish over the winter
February is around the corner......

Mau5 wrote: »

I was wondering about the brown trout season in lough corrib,
Is it too late in the season to be fishing brown trout with spinners or bait rather than fly? I have no experience in fly fishing but would like to go to lough corrib sometime before the end of september.

Thanks

mattcullen

why is spinning so harmfull? is it that more fish are caught (ie too effective) or because of the use of treble hooks causing harm to the fish? If so would use of a single hook not solve that?

experimenter

Think about it, a whopping treble hook in a small fish! :eek:

Caribs

demanufactured wrote: »

They'll probably blame the pike and start gill netting again.....muck savages.

..muck savages...seriously..??

seamusmcspud

lads ...lets be honest, even at its peak is spinning that effective on corrib???
maybe for perch but nice trout?? if you know where to go please reply as i've had some terrible lean times up there and have tried all methods, fly(wet and dry) dapping, trolling all sorts of stuff and spinning but alas if the trout aren't on they simply are very difficult to catch. have found this year that they may only come on for half an hour a day and you'd just wanna be lucky... :eek:

Zzippy

coolhandspan wrote: »

too late now, season closed. in my honest opinion spinning for troutr on corrib should be either banned orcatch and release only. i have done it myself but stocks are crashing hard and wrfb are afraid to admit it..............

Have you any evidence to support that claim?
Thought not...
Whereas the most recent survey report (2008) conducted by IFI under the Water Framework Directive ( http://www.wfdfish.ie/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/corrib_report_2008.pdf ) shows that "Brown trout CPUE was approximately twice as high in 2008 compared to 1996." This would appear to contradict your claim. But hey, what would the scientists know... :rolleyes:

The survey was repeated in 2011 but the CPUE stats are not available on the website yet. I met an angler I know last week who had his best year for about a decade on the lake and was very happy with fish stocks. Its not proof, but its about as scientific as your claim that "stocks are crashing".

And BTW, if stocks were crashing, IFI (not WRFB anymore) would be very concerned and would certainly not be hiding it, or "afraid to admit it".

Paparazzo

Some weird comments here about spinning. But it's too late in the year, best thing it to do it next year, but get a boat if you can and spin from that. It's such a big lake that there's always going to be places to spin from the shore, but a boat would make it much easier.

fisherking

The problem with trollers on corrib is that the vast majority if them kill and sell their catch
In my opinion trolling should be called "boating" instead of fishing
Spinning from the shore is fine i think..... not for me but each to their own....

Paparazzo wrote: »

Some weird comments here about spinning. But it's too late in the year, best thing it to do it next year, but get a boat if you can and spin from that. It's such a big lake that there's always going to be places to spin from the shore, but a boat would make it much easier.

bayliner

fisherking wrote: »

The problem with trollers on corrib is that the vast majority if them kill and sell their catch
In my opinion trolling should be called "boating" instead of fishing
Spinning from the shore is fine i think..... not for me but each to their own....

spinning is fine now? it was shameful a few posts ago!!
where is your evidence that trollers SELL the fish they kill?? i dont fish corrib but would be shocked if this is true,
i fly fish and troll lough ree and have done for over 30 yrs, 40 to 50% of anglers both trolling and flyfishing regularly use the catch and release method and no one that i know off sell fish!!

Paparazzo

fisherking wrote: »

The problem with trollers on corrib is that the vast majority if them kill and sell their catch
In my opinion trolling should be called "boating" instead of fishing
Spinning from the shore is fine i think..... not for me but each to their own....

Rubbish. First of all spinning from a boat isn't trolling. Spinning from a boat is similar to fly fishing. Cast out your lure from a floating boat and retrieve it.
The vast majority of trollers kill and sell their catch?? Are you having a laugh?

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

Zzippy wrote: »

Have you any evidence to support that claim?
Thought not...

Why ask a question, only to answer it yourself sarcastically?

Paparazzo

Kaysen Rapping Beige wrote: »

Why ask a question, only to answer it yourself sarcastically?

Because when someone has such idiotic opinions they deserve to be mocked.

stylie

Some people have opinions on Lough Corrib yet it sounds like they never fished the lake.
Fly anglers do the most damage, I fish Corrib more than any other lake in Ireland and I wetfly/dryfly/dap/buzzer fish and I also troll and spin. I have been doing all methods on Corrib for well over ten yrs between 2-3 weeks a year.
Old timers fishing the brickeen are very different to specialized troller's, see CorribPredators on face book
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Corrib-Predator-Team/146066345456850?sk=wall
The old brickeen anglers used to sell their catch and it is a method that should probably be banned or at least stopped early in the year as its deadly early on.
Serious trollers are targeting large trout 6lb+ , they catch very few and C&R is creeping into their mindset.
As for a guy spinning ? be it rapala's, mepps, spoon or tassie's they are not successful methods when compared to fly fishing.
A fly angler will out fish the guy spinning over the course of the year no problem.

Its fly anglers that need to limit their catch and its B&B owners that need to say to their guests to observe the daily limit and size limit, which I saw broken in May by european anglers, and the B&B owners are powerless to say anything because they cant risk losing the paying customer.
Also having a catch and kill competition(limited to 4, but still) every weekend doesn't help the lake

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

Everyone has an opinion, so what if they are wrong. no need to try and label them the village idiot.

coolhandspan

European paper on it, if gill netting pike and artificial hatcheries were stopped , trout population would be wiped out in a few years.

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0474/01
by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(21 February 2001)
Subject: Freshwater fishing in Ireland: ongoing disturbance of the natural balance in the Western Lakes Region

1. Can the Commission confirm that, in the Western Lakes System in Ireland - which consists of Lough Corrib in County Galway and Lough Mask and Lough Carra in County Mayo and the associated rivers in the western region, together with Lough Arrow in County Sligo in north-west Ireland - the number of trout and salmon has declined sharply over the past 20 years or so?
2. Can the Commission also confirm that that decline in numbers is a consequence of the canalisation of natural watercourses and of the reclamation and draining of areas in the direct vicinity of the lakes and the associated river systems, with the result that there is now less space for fish swimming up rapidly flowing streams?
3. To what extent is the continuing decline in trout numbers also a consequence of pollution by phosphates of agricultural and domestic origin, of overgrazing by sheep on neighbouring hills, of acidification as a result of the planting of conifers on slopes which drain into the lakes region, of erosion and as a result of encroachment on spawning grounds in rivers and of the fact that many game anglers, contrary to international custom, do not throw back the fish they catch but kill and eat them?
4. In the period since European subsidies began to be granted in 1996, what has been done to improve water quality and restore spawning grounds with a view to protecting trout stocks in the lakes referred to in point 1?
5. Is the Commission aware that European subsidies have been used for the deployment of gillnets, the main objective of which is to catch pike between February and the end of April in the shallow spawning grounds where they gather to breed?
6. Can the Commission confirm that trout, perch, whitefish, otters, diving waterfowl and other animals living in, on and near to the lakes also get caught up in these gillnets and that some of them die a painful death after vainly struggling for hours to free themselves?
7. Is such use of gillnets, which upset the balance of nature, compatible with the status of specially protected area under the Wild Birds Directive?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(7 June 2001)

1. According to the information received from the WRFB, the stock surveys of Loughs Corrib, Mask and Carra in 1996 indicated to different degrees that the wild brown trout stock was not optimal and that pike (an introduced species) stocks particularly in Lough Corrib were very significant. The scientific advice was that several measures were needed to ensure that stocks improve. These were as follows: to repair feeder and nursery streams and their habitat; to control and eliminate pollution sources; to reduce the stock of predatory non-indigenous species. Salmon stocks are subjected to different pressures in the marine environment.
As indicated by the NWRFB, insofar as Lough Arrow is concerned, a fish stock survey carried out in 1994 revealed a 50 % reduction in stocks of wild trout compared with similar surveys in 1979-1980.
2. As per the WRFB, the canalisation of rivers and streams reduced fish numbers in feeder streams. This aspect of engineering works was a target of the development programme and considerable work has ensured that previously drained channels are now producing considerable numbers of trout and salmon fry and parr. There is ample space for trout and fast flowing water is necessary for salmon parr production.
According to the NWRFB, in the case of Lough Arrow, the decline was not attributed to canalisation of natural watercourses and the reclamation and draining of areas in the direct vicinity of the lakes and associated rivers systems. The decline was attributed to increased pike stocks and poor quality habitat in many of the inflowing streams. The development project set out to address the habitat problem. The increasing of pike control activities was not funded under Community programme.
3. The WRFB maintains that the decline in trout numbers has been reversed by the development works undertaken under the programme. Overgrazing and afforestation can put additional pressures on a salmonid catchment, the overall plan addresses these aspects as well as the issue of the predatory fish species in the lakes. The fact that anglers, many of them local people, have always fished for trout on these lakes is part of the cultural heritage of the West of Ireland. These people have always caught and eaten the fish as part of their diet. In addition the Fisheries Board in question is actively promoting catch and release of trout by anglers.
According to the NWRFB, with the exception of overgrazing by sheep, all of the factors outlined may have contributed to the reduced trout stocks on Lough Arrow.
Agri-environment measures in the rural development plans aim to encourage farmers to respect good farming practices, to remunerate them when they go beyond these practices and to reduce the pollution, mainly in nitrates. They also include actions to reduce density of animals.
4. According to the information provided by the WRFB, in any areas where water quality problems have been identified, remedial measures are being actively pursued. The development plan 1996-1999 was focused on stream development and the vast majority of the funding was invested in maximising trout production. Spawning and nursery grounds were restored where necessary and the result has achieved its objective with enormous increases in juvenile trout numbers in developed stretches of rivers. This is supported by a vast amount of scientific information gathered, both before development, and after development on fish stock numbers and compared against the necessary controls, etc.
The operational programme for tourism was aimed at restoring spawning grounds with a view to protecting trout stocks in Lough Arrow. Responsibility for water quality in the lake rests primarily with Sligo and Roscommon County Councils and with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Fisheries Board has only very limited powers in relation to water quality issues. For example, it may bring prosecutions in respect of specific offences but it has virtually no powers in regard to preventive measures. The Board does, however, carry out pollution inspections on a regular basis in the Lough Arrow catchment with view to identifying specific problems and these are dealt with as appropriate. A much wider programme, involving the local authorities, EPA, farming community etc. is desirable and should be spearheaded by the local authorities.
5. As indicated by the WRFB, the introduced pike species must be controlled as has been clearly demonstrated by the scientific advisors to the programme. Pike are caught and removed and where possible transferred alive to non-salmonid waters by different methods including drum nets, gill nets and electro-fishing. Insofar as Lough Arrow is concerned, Community subsidies have not been used for the deployment of gill nets for the catching of pike.
6. As stated by the WRFB, the gill nets are designed to catch pike and perch, the careful placing of the nets ensures that any by-catch is minimised. Other animals would only rarely be caught. The timing of placement and the locations used are designed to minimise the possibility of catching anything other than
the target species. The number of wild foul caught is minuscule, even compared to the number of wild foul taken by the pike alone. As stated above, Community subsided gill nets are not used on Lough Arrow.
7. According to the WRFB, the balance of nature in Loughs Corrib, Mask and Carra was upset by the introduction of pike. Current efforts are to try and maintain the indigenous species in these lakes. These lakes are of enormous importance as one of the last refugees of fast growing wild brown trout in alkaline waters and need to be maintained as salmonid waters. This is also the desire of the vast majority of Irish people who have lived and grown up in this area and for whom the lake, and wild brown trout in particular, is part of their heritage.
In the NWRFB's view the use of gill nets does not upset the balance of nature. Gill nets are used to control pike that are not a native species. They are removed by gill nets because they prey on trout, which are a native species.

mattcullen

is spinning/trolling more effective earlier in the year? Would like to give it a shot early next season as not crazy about fly fishing.Would crunching the barbs or using single instead of treble hooks not undo a lot of the damage done by this method?

Paparazzo

mattcullen wrote: »

is spinning/trolling more effective earlier in the year? Would like to give it a shot early next season as not crazy about fly fishing.Would crunching the barbs or using single instead of treble hooks not undo a lot of the damage done by this method?

It's effective all season I find, but depends on the weather. I've caught fish on flat calm days when there wasn't a boat out. If the weather is like that you can let your spinner drop deep and the sun will still catch it 20 foot down. Plenty of nice spots if you take a boat. I fish the north part of the lake, depends if you're fishing from a boat of shore. Somewhere with good access if it's from the shore. If you drive out onto Inismicateer there's a few good stretches you can walk out onto, but no idea what the fishing is like. Big flat rocks you can walk out on.
If you want to go barbless, you can buy barbless, or file them off. Handy to do if you stick the hook in a clamp.

Zzippy

Kaysen Rapping Beige wrote: »

Why ask a question, only to answer it yourself sarcastically?

Kaysen Rapping Beige wrote: »

Everyone has an opinion, so what if they are wrong. no need to try and label them the village idiot.

It is accepted practice on boards to back up claims you are making with links to stats or research proving those claims. Sorry if you thought I was being too sarcastic, but I don't see why we should allow ridiculous claims to be made on this forum and people not be called up on them. Also, making ridiculous statements without proof is a good indication of being an idiot.

Trout stocks on Corrib are not crashing hard, but stupid claims like that mentioned, can come up in google searches, etc. and give a misleading impression to e.g. foreign anglers researching a trip here.

Just because one guy can't catch trout he thinks its ok to state categorically that stocks are crashing - that's BS and I'll call him up on it.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

Fair enough zippy. Im not a game angler, so im not going to make any comment on lough Corrib. Great to hear the stocks are doing well, unlike some of the former great coarse fishing spots around the country.

on another note, id love to get into trout fishing, its on my to-do list for next year!

seamusmcspud

stylie wrote: »

Some people have opinions on Lough Corrib yet it sounds like they never fished the lake.
Fly anglers do the most damage, I fish Corrib more than any other lake in Ireland and I wetfly/dryfly/dap/buzzer fish and I also troll and spin. I have been doing all methods on Corrib for well over ten yrs between 2-3 weeks a year.
Old timers fishing the brickeen are very different to specialized troller's, see CorribPredators on face book
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Corrib-Predator-Team/146066345456850?sk=wall
The old brickeen anglers used to sell their catch and it is a method that should probably be banned or at least stopped early in the year as its deadly early on.
Serious trollers are targeting large trout 6lb+ , they catch very few and C&R is creeping into their mindset.
As for a guy spinning ? be it rapala's, mepps, spoon or tassie's they are not successful methods when compared to fly fishing.
A fly angler will out fish the guy spinning over the course of the year no problem.

Its fly anglers that need to limit their catch and its B&B owners that need to say to their guests to observe the daily limit and size limit, which I saw broken in May by european anglers, and the B&B owners are powerless to say anything because they cant risk losing the paying customer.
Also having a catch and kill competition(limited to 4, but still) every weekend doesn't help the lake

+1

ironbluedun

Zzippy wrote: »

Trout stocks on Corrib are not crashing hard, but stupid claims like that mentioned, can come up in google searches, etc. and give a misleading impression to e.g. foreign anglers researching a trip here.

Zzippy, as a longstanding game angler who has fished the limestone loughs of Ireland for many years, I do not disrespect your views but can you please tell me as to why if stocks are so good that fishing is so poor?

I have heard stuff about trout changing the way they feed, but honestly i do think that that could be an issue but its not all the problem, not be a long shot.

You have mentioned foreign anglers and tourism. This is the key point. There is no point in the IFI fishing reports not telling the truth and the truth is that there is something wrong with trout fishing on Corrib. I respectfully suggest that i have watched the fishing reports for a number of years and some of the content is misleading. The reports concentrate totally on the 'rosy' side of things, well it might be good to focus on the positive but in the long term is failing to highlight the truth good for game angling? i doubt it.
Maybe, just maybe its not the anglers on here who are misleading foreign anglers who are planning to visit Ireland?

ironbluedun

stylie wrote: »

Its fly anglers that need to limit their catch

I agree but its ALL anglers who need to limit their kill. There is no sense in arguing the difference between fly anglers and trollers/spinners. ALL game anglers whatever their level of ability, skill, or methods deployed should limit their kill. To me that means one trout per day and no more than 3 in any week, if this rule was adhered to by ALL anglers i feel that it would help stocks to recover.
Some people just don't understand or don't want to understand that dead trout can not spawn. This is unfortunate.
But lets not just pretend its as easy as that, there are other issues to consider that are nothing to do with the physical act of angling.

(sadly there is a lot of smart offensive comments on this forum please don't refer to concerned anglers as idiots, stupid etc etc they are not)

Paparazzo

ironbluedun wrote: »

Zzippy, as a longstanding game angler who has fished the limestone loughs of Ireland for many years, I do not disrespect your views but can you please tell me as to why if stocks are so good that fishing is so poor?

I have heard stuff about trout changing the way they feed, but honestly i do think that that could be an issue but its not all the problem, not be a long shot.

You have mentioned foreign anglers and tourism. This is the key point. There is no point in the IFI fishing reports not telling the truth and the truth is that there is something wrong with trout fishing on Corrib. I respectfully suggest that i have watched the fishing reports for a number of years and some of the content is misleading. The reports concentrate totally on the 'rosy' side of things, well it might be good to focus on the positive but in the long term is failing to highlight the truth good for game angling? i doubt it.
Maybe, just maybe its not the anglers on here who are misleading foreign anglers who are planning to visit Ireland?

For the last 25 years on every lake I've ever fished I've heard anglers say "it was far better last year/5 years ago". A fisheries report is the only way, and if you think they're cooking their figures then I don't think anything will convince you.

ironbluedun wrote: »

I agree but its ALL anglers who need to limit their kill. There is no sense in arguing the difference between fly anglers and trollers/spinners. ALL game anglers whatever their level of ability, skill, or methods deployed should limit their kill. To me that means one trout per day and no more than 3 in any week, if this rule was adhered to by ALL anglers i feel that it would help stocks to recover.
Some people just don't understand or don't want to understand that dead trout can not spawn. This is unfortunate.
But lets not just pretend its as easy as that, there are other issues to consider that are nothing to do with the physical act of angling.

(sadly there is a lot of smart offensive comments on this forum please don't refer to concerned anglers as idiots, stupid etc etc they are not)

Agree with limiting the fish you can take. I know locals (not foreigners shocker!!) that go out every day during the summer after work and they always take a few fish.
And stupid comments need to be pointed out. And this thread has plenty of them in the first few posts.

Zzippy

ironbluedun wrote: »

Zzippy, as a longstanding game angler who has fished the limestone loughs of Ireland for many years, I do not disrespect your views but can you please tell me as to why if stocks are so good that fishing is so poor?

I have heard stuff about trout changing the way they feed, but honestly i do think that that could be an issue but its not all the problem, not be a long shot.

You have mentioned foreign anglers and tourism. This is the key point. There is no point in the IFI fishing reports not telling the truth and the truth is that there is something wrong with trout fishing on Corrib. I respectfully suggest that i have watched the fishing reports for a number of years and some of the content is misleading. The reports concentrate totally on the 'rosy' side of things, well it might be good to focus on the positive but in the long term is failing to highlight the truth good for game angling? i doubt it.
Maybe, just maybe its not the anglers on here who are misleading foreign anglers who are planning to visit Ireland?

Anglers opinions, fishing reports, etc are all subjective, and of course there will be a reluctance to highlight poor fishing. The only way to measure fishing stocks objectively is through scientific surveys, and I produced a report showing that stocks are actually up on Corrib, and haven't crashed as a previous poster claimed. That's the only fact in this argument so far. Your opinion, my opinion, are all irrelevant in the light of those facts.

I found fishing on Corrib this year to be very patchy - some days I never saw a fish, and some days I saw more fish rising than I've seen in years. Some days I had really good fishing, best I've had in a long time, and some days I blanked. A lot of changes have occurred over the last few years - the introduction of the invasive waterweed, the zebra mussel, reduced nutrient inputs (slight reduction), colder winters, etc.

Personally I think the zebra mussel has had a huge effect - the water clarity is 3-4 times now what it was a few years ago. I know anglers who have gone to 3 or 4lbs fluorocarbon/copolymer now, where before they fished 6lbs mono, because they recognise that increased clarity means increased visibility of their leaders, and guess what, they're the guys still catching fish. The guys who stuck with what they always did are not catching fish, and of course they blame falling stocks... the lake ecology is evolving, and if anglers don't change to suit this they won't catch fish, simple as. But one thing is for sure, the trout are still there!

ironbluedun

Really angling reports should be truthful whether they bring good or bad news. If i was an angler planning to go to another country to fish and i read fishing reports produced by the state or govenrment agency from that country I would expect them to be accurate and honest.
There should be no reluctance to tell the truth.

With regard to water clarity, fine lines etc that's all fine but it doesnt really stack up. i fish sheelin that has had the zebras for nearly 10 years and i have been using the fine diameter stuff for a long time now, i have posted about leader type and diameter many times on here in the past, its a pet subject of mine, so i am well up on it and its not the answer.
Many years ago before pollution, zebras etc water clarity was very good and people still caught fish with heavier lines, there was no co-polymer or flouro back then!
Take L Carra a prime example, always and ever a clear water lough and anglers down the years caught plenty fish there with 6lb and heavier mono. So why did this happen? I feel it happened because there were more trout competing for food.
You say that the surveys show that there is as many fish as ever, well they must be feeding heavily on buzzer, shrimp, etc and paying less attention to what is at the surface.

Zzippy

ironbluedun wrote: »

Really angling reports should be truthful whether they bring good or bad news. If i was an angler planning to go to another country to fish and i read fishing reports produced by the state or govenrment agency from that country I would expect them to be accurate and honest.
There should be no reluctance to tell the truth.

With regard to water clarity, fine lines etc that's all fine but it doesnt really stack up. i fish sheelin that has had the zebras for nearly 10 years and i have been using the fine diameter stuff for a long time now, i have posted about leader type and diameter many times on here in the past, its a pet subject of mine, so i am well up on it and its not the answer.
Many years ago before pollution, zebras etc water clarity was very good and people still caught fish with heavier lines, there was no co-polymer or flouro back then!
Take L Carra a prime example, always and ever a clear water lough and anglers down the years caught plenty fish there with 6lb and heavier mono. So why did this happen? I feel it happened because there were more trout competing for food.
You say that the surveys show that there is as many fish as ever, well they must be feeding heavily on buzzer, shrimp, etc and paying less attention to what is at the surface.

All good points, and maybe you answered the question with the last one... that's possible too. That could be down to the zebra mussel too - more mussels filtering the water means less plankton in the water, and the nutrients in the lake become concentrated in the benthic zone rather than the pelagic, so it would make sense that fish would be feeding more in that zone. Zebra mussels don't remove nutrients from a lake, but they "move" the nutrients to the bottom, and that's a huge ecological shift in the space of a few years...

finlayspub1

guys i did 75 days on sheelin and corrib and ennell this year .
does no one think that pollution is a huge factor on fishing and the number of trout showing .
We are very naive if we think that pollution is still not flowing in to all these lakes , and in return the trout feed on the masses of pupae , bloodworm , nymphs, etc that thrive in polluted waters , why would you come up for a slice of bread on top when you have steak on the bottom .
Just because there are no trout showing does not mean they are not there .
A lot of anglers will turn up on a lake and give it a few hours and if nothing shows , they presume that there are no fish feeding or there are no fish in it , i had 5 fish on the 4th august on ennell (miracle) during the day when no fish showed (all returned), last week on sheelin i had 4 fish over 3 days from 3lb 9ozs to 5lbs 4ozs when nothing showed bar a few stockies .
I agree with ironbluedun , we need to go lighter on our leaders and copolymers and iv gone down to 2lb BS this year , caught and released 11 fish on ennell during the peter on ennell this year , , saw massive rises of fish on corrib to caenis between 5 am and 7 am during summer , and massive rise of fish in a flat calm to shiny blacks in castletown on corrib , any attempt to fish them would have put them down , if you want to catch fish change your tactics and put in the hours , they are there , but you have to figure it out

anglingcharts

I'm still seeing hundreds, if not thousands of fish every time I do a survey, but this year I've barely seen a rise on the surface at all. This sonar image is pretty typical (taken a couple of months back) of shallow bays all around the Corrib.http://www.anglingcharts.com/images/588_ballycurrin_fish3.jpg

I often stop and chuck a spinner in for the craic, barely a nudge this year - but they are obviously eating something !

Trevor

finlayspub1

well done anglingcharts , knew i wasnt seeing things;), ballycurrin bay i see , ballynalty held lot ofc fish this year as did castletown as i mentioned earlier .

anglingcharts

I'm also seeing plenty of very large shoals in deep water - I'm assuming these to be coarse fish by the shape and behaviour of the shoal. Theres some sidescan imagery on the website of this years fish - and some regular colourful sonar stuff as well.
It may be the case that fishing will get more technical - look at some of the USA sites, although they have possibly gone a little OTT - and C & R will have to be the norm if we go that route. I see long discussions about the position of the thermocline etc - rather takes the fun out of it. Mind you - if you want to know where it is on Corrib at the moment I can probably tell you .....


Trevor

finlayspub1

lot of roach around ill agree with u there trevor ,,

Caribs

Water quality can't be helping, just take Oughterard for example, effectively raw sewage being pumped into the lake from the lower reaches of the Owenriff combined with the run off from the forestry is bound to change the ecosystem and the feeding habits.

I caught quite a few small trout this year (all returned) which hopefully bodes well for the future but also fished in plenty of competitions where the overall catch was low, how much of that was down to the conditions on the day and for me being a crap enthusiastic angler I can't say but saw plenty of trout and salmon jumping over the season which was great.

...and at risk of being accused of being a muck savage the introduction and preponderance of pike in the Owenriff lake system which for the Oughterard part of the lake is a hugely important spawning area can't be helping. The pike have to feed on something and young trout must be a great source of protein.

fisherking

I was speaking only about corrib.
It is merely an opinion based on what i have seen over many years with my own eyes
At no point did i say all trollers.

I see trollers taking many fish on corrib and i know they sell their catch.

Paparazzo wrote: »

fisherking wrote: »

The problem with trollers on corrib is that the vast majority if them kill and sell their catch
In my opinion trolling should be called "boating" instead of fishing
Spinning from the shore is fine i think..... not for me but each to their own....

Rubbish. First of all spinning from a boat isn't trolling. Spinning from a boat is similar to fly fishing. Cast out your lure from a floating boat and retrieve it.
The vast majority of trollers kill and sell their catch?? Are you having a laugh?

coolhandspan

yeah agree fisherking, but this isn't a spinning v fly fishing debate.. good and bad on both sides. just saw some of papparazzis posts is that guy for real...............lol

Paparazzo

coolhandspan wrote: »

yeah agree fisherking, but this isn't a spinning v fly fishing debate.. good and bad on both sides. just saw some of papparazzis posts is that guy for real...............lol

Says the guy who thinks spinning should be banned (but spins anyway), thinks the IFI are putting out false reports, and who thinks the trout population is "crashing hard" :rolleyes:
Do me a favour....

coolhandspan

Paparazzo wrote: »

coolhandspan wrote: »

yeah agree fisherking, but this isn't a spinning v fly fishing debate.. good and bad on both sides. just saw some of papparazzis posts is that guy for real...............lol

Says the guy who thinks spinning should be banned (but spins anyway), thinks the IFI are putting out false reports, and who thinks the trout population is "crashing hard" :rolleyes:
Do me a favour....

Ha ha lol u are paranoid, hilarious stuff

jkchambers

IFI undertook a full stock assessment of Corrib over the first couple of weeks of March. It was identical to the one undertaken in 1996. Catch numbers have not yet been officially released yet.
On behalf of the Irish Federation of Pike Angling clubs another committee member and myself attended the lifting of nets one day at Cornamona. We were taken out by IFI staff and were shown everything. Four 220 metre nets were lifted. Each net contains sections of different mesh sizes in order to try to catch fish of all sizes. In this mile or so of nets only 1 trout (about 5 lbs) and 1 Pike (around 4 lbs) were caught. Other fish inclubed around 40 large roach bream hybrids, a few bream, maybe 40 roach and around 30 perch. I would have thought that a single trout and a single pike was a very poor catch for 4 nets set at different locations. Staff did tell me that trout catches were very poor in some areas while very good in others. Over 200 sites around the lake were netted.
Reference was made to the 1996 stock assessment report. In that trout stocks were actually good as were the pike stocks and this after a decade or so of no gillnetting of pike.
Reference was also made to the Owenriff system as being a major spawning source for the Corrib. A genetics study presented by IFI`s Dr Martin O Grady indicated 5.7% of Corrib trout stocks come from the system.

coolwings

The biggest loss is to flyfishers. Here are some of the factors that have been at work in my opinion:

The roach are now established. The larger trout can eat roach which are compact and nutritious, and more satisfying than a tiny fly. A 5lb brown taking one 5 ounce roach every second evening at dusk does not help fly fishers. Anyone out there using using 8" lures for trout?

Zebra mussels significantly reduce tiny organisms that both trout and coarse fish need to survive and grow, so after zebras are established, the mortality of all young (year 0 class) fish increases, and the numbers of adult fish eventually reduces. They grow bigger due to there being fewer of them, so zebras function as a reducer of other fish numbers, as a result of competition for food at the young fish stage.
Some coarse fish consume zebras, and these may thrive, but in fewer numbers. Tench and bream caught are for example bigger in recent years. However a link to zebras is not proven as far as I know, also climate warming will also contribute to coarse fish (warm water species) growth. Warm water is a bad effect on cold water species, like trout, putting them deep in refuge from over hot temperatures.
Therefore climate change is a factor that messes up traditional surface fishing techniques for trout. The cool of the night they come up, but drifting with wet flies is not the best at that hour.

You could say about the changes just mentioned, that Corrib and Mask have taken a slight shift in the direction of Ree or Derravaragh; And Ree, Derravaragh, Derg, Ennell and Sheelin have taken a slight shift towards being coarse fishing lakes ..... so much so that Derravaragh is pretty much now a coarse lake. Trout are now fewer, bigger, more fish eating in their habits, and harder to locate than they used to be. This change is particularly noticeable on Lough Conn.

Then you look at the number of anglers nowadays compared with 30 years ago. They don't all return their catch .....

Finally, in the catchment of many lakes, the OPW have dredged the gravel out of the spawning streams in "land reclamation" programmes, which were actually political vote getting projects.
These projects have been ongoing for 50 years now. You can dig up a lot of river bottom in 50 years with a Hymac.
They have a major effect on all fish stocks, but especially game fish which need fast water and gravel, both are which removed in OPW widening and deepening operations.

Water quality has gotten worse over 30 years, and may be getting better now. It helped destroy many waters, but is probably not worsening the situation any more. But midge species have been favoured by enrichment for a long time, which are easily eaten under the surface, and harder for fish to catch on the surface. Midge eating trout taking suspended midge pupae in a layer underwater require different fly fishing presentations, which works against the traditional over the front of a drifting boat lough style. Adaptable anglers do well with suitable techniques.

Next we get to genetic quality. What do you think happens when you kill the healthiest and fastest growing trout within a population for 50 years? At the same time returning the weak small ones to reproduce and make the next generation ...... year after year culling the strong and releasing the weak ...... you end up with dwarves, that's what!
We now need catch and release for decades, with both big trout and pike culling the weaker trout to make the genetics of the stocks good again. But it's hard to allow predation when we already know that total numbers are down so much. So the simultaneous rehabilitation of streams, and acceptable predation levels are all we can stand. Sorting this out will take many decades.

jkchambers

It is hard to quantify the impact of zebras. When they got into Ree the pike fishing was poor with some competitions having to be re-run due to no catches and trout fishing was ok. Now zebras have been in Ree a good few years and I hear that trout fishing is great and pike fishing good.
Zebras have been in Sheelin a few years now and this was blamed for the collapse of roach stocks and then the consequent collapse in pike stocks. The annual IFI stock assessment survey of Sheelin is just over. I am reliably informed that pike stocks are still low, trout stocks much the same as last year but roach are back in big numbers. How can that be if zebras are eating all the plankton that juvenile roach need to survive. It appears that in Russia roach and zebras survive well together.
Getting back to Corrib the ferox trout are now feeding pretty exclusively on roach. Well thats what IFI examination of stomach contents is showing. At a meeting of anglers in Galway in February to discuss the Corrib survey one angler suggested that instead of ban on the taking of trout under 14 ins(I think that was the measure) there should be a reversal to a ban on the taking of trout over that length.

coolwings

jkchambers wrote: »

.... At a meeting of anglers in Galway in February to discuss the Corrib survey one angler suggested that instead of ban on the taking of trout under 14 ins(I think that was the measure) there should be a reversal to a ban on the taking of trout over that length.

This would be the correct thing to do in my opinion, to slowly allow the genetic stock to be restored to longer lifespan-larger trout.
They have evolved to deal with death at a young age from angling harvest, so we now have fast growing short lifespan trout, (ferox are an exception as they live longer than ordinary trout).

The natural state would be for trout that increase size a little slower, and also live a lot longer, and get to larger sizes in their life. But that depends on a reduced mortality rate. As long as we have a great number of anglers, this means catch and release.
Encouraging anglers to kill and remove smaller trout (or any other species of fish) does not automaticaly mean removing the weaker genes. This is because the anglers would be focused on small young trout, not small older trout.
But predation and disease are going to do their job over time, if we let them do it.

In Irish lakes, if zebras reduce small fish numbers, it would be relatively easy to cull perch in their spawning time by dropping bushes in the water, on which some eprch spawn, and then removing the bushes with the spaw attached, thus reducing the amount of perch spawn success, and their numbers before they start to eat all around them. Not intending to eliminate them, but to reduce their biomass(numbers) a certain % amount. This reduced predation on small fish would balance against small fish death due to shortage of plankton from zebra infestation. I'm sure research would produce some guideline on effect of fry predators (perch) vs fry food competitors(zebras) and their relative effect on fry survival.

Is perch spawn reduction necessary on fertile loughs in the first place? Probably not.
But in the less fertile lakes I believe a programme of % perch reduction might benefit all other fish numbers, bream, tench, rudd, including bigger perch! Big fish numbers are a function of the strength of the year class from when they were born. More baby bream this year = more 10lb bream in 12 years from now. The question is: are the adults too many in numbers and stunted, or too few and enormous? Does the lough have too many fish and it needs more predators, or too few fish and need some sort of a predator reduction (perch spawn removal)?
When we look at this aspect of a lough biosystem, we find ourselves talking about maintaining a balance in quantity of good spawning area for each species, which is definitely the way forward in the future.
If we arrange for adequate spawning area for each species of fish, the fish will to a large extent look after themselves for the rest of their life.
The trout probably suffered most due to dredging operations down the years and need much help in this regard.
The fishery biologists are paying great attention to this approach now as a result of research findings.

jkchambers

In the 1996 Corrib stock assessment both trout and pike stocks were good. There had been no pike removal for around 10 years. From 1996 on there has been extensive gillnetting and electrofishing to remove pike. There has also been a lot of instream enhancement work. In view of this you would expect trout stocks to increase.
Two waterframework directive stock assessment surveys have been carried out since that with one in 2008 and the other 2011.
These 2 wfd surveys can be directly compared to each other but not with the 1996 survey as it was much more extensive and nets were somewhat different. The 2 wfd directive surveys used the same nets at the same sites at the same time of year. In numbers caught trout numbers were down by 33% and pike numbers were also down by 33%. The drop in pike numbers can be explained by the "predator control" programme but why are trout numbers down especially with the instream work and pike numbers down.
I hope to soon have catch numbers from the 2012 stock assessment which will be directly comparable to the 1996 assessment as nets, site locations and time of year are the same. From initial figures I got during the survey I expect drops from the 1996 figures to be around 60% for pike and 40% for trout. I will add that the figures I received were before the stock assessment was completed and were not from, what should I say, official sources.
No char were caught in the current survey so it is pretty sure that there are no longer any in Corrib. Various coarse species numbers seem to be strong, pike are well down which we can attribute to the "predator control" operations. Trout numbers do appear to be also well down and the reason for that is the big question. I attended the Corrib stock assessment info meeting in February where around 60 were in attendance. I am pretty sure that I was the only pike angler there. Lots of trout anglers spoke about the lack of trout but not a single one of them pointed a finger or even mentioned pike as a problem.

coolwings

When we say "predators" people assume we are talking about pike.
But not necessarily. Perch are a predator and an insectivore, as is trout.
So perch both compete with young trout for food items, and also eat baby trout.
Perch made a cycliclical high in numbers over the past decade, and seem to outnumber the trout by 50:1.
It will be interesting to see what changes occur (in the other species) when perch eventually swing back into a cyclical decline.

And then there is the roach, introduced into those lakes at or about the same time trout began their one way decline ...... roach are likely what pushed arctic char over the edge in Corrib.

If trout anglers were in the habit of recording numbers of all species caught, over the seasons, (instead of just trout numbers caught) the decade long struggle between different species for resources would be very clear.
But since they don't keep such detailed logs the fishery surveys are all we have.

jkchambers

coolwings wrote: »

When we say "predators" people assume we are talking about pike.
But not necessarily. Perch are a predator and an insectivore, as is trout.
So perch both compete with young trout for food items, and also eat baby trout.
Perch made a cycliclical high in numbers over the past decade, and seem to outnumber the trout by 50:1.
It will be interesting to see what changes occur (in the other species) when perch eventually swing back into a cyclical decline.

And then there is the roach, introduced into those lakes at or about the same time trout began their one way decline ...... roach are likely what pushed arctic char over the edge in Corrib.

If trout anglers were in the habit of recording numbers of all species caught, over the seasons, (instead of just trout numbers caught) the decade long struggle between different species for resources would be very clear.
But since they don't keep such detailed logs the fishery surveys are all we have.

In the past when people talked about "predator control" on the Western Lakes they were talking about pike control. Yes, perch will feed on juvenile trout. Perch arent in anything like a 50:1 majority on Corrib. In the waterframework directive survey last summer the catches were 27trout to 223 perch which works out at just over 8:1. Looking at the prelim figures I managed to get for last months survey the ratio would have been a bit lower. They would still have had an impact but perch have been present in good numbers in Corrib for a long time.
It is sad to see the char gone from Corrib. While the ferox trout now feed pretty well exclusively on roach when char were present they were the much preferred food.
http://www.wfdfish.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Corrib_prel_report_2011.pdf

anglingcharts

I was doing a bathymetric and sidescan survey north of Lee Island and Sedge island yesterday, beautiful, almost mirror calm morning. Saw a lot of mayfly hatching off, what was missing was trout to eat them - only saw two rises to them all morning. Hope they get an appetite before the "mayfly festival" in Oughterard. Saw plenty of coarse fish up there - mainly big bream.

anglingcharts

coolhandspan

was really disappointed by new stock survey, native brown trout are in trouble. roach have stabilised but perch seem to be causing huge problems.

gary29428

Yeah, and what do the fisheries do, go out and kill another couple of hundred pike. They extensively netted an area of the lake earlier this year that is practically closed off and never visited by trout anglers. It is very peaty water and "HAD" a good head of pike. I'm convinced they only went in there to juice up the numbers they were killing as part of there predator control because in all the time I've spent in there over the years I've seen a trout rise. Perch numbers are up from pracically nothing in 1996 to over 600 this time around....not good.