25lb trout caught on corrib

Paparazzo

Anyone hear about it? Sorry, no link, heard one was caught a couple of days ago.

demanufactured

Probabaly got beaten over the head with a priest and will be seen mounted in a pub round corrib somewhere soon.

Zzippy

Welsh guy Ceri Jones, 23lbs 12oz apparently, he claims its the biggest Corrib trout by 3 lbs, obviously never saw the 25lbs fish that was caught (and released) 2 years ago. The fish was killed, and will be displayed in the same pub in Clonbur where his previous big fish (19lbs, caught last year) is mounted :rolleyes:

Check Galway Advertiser facebook page for the story, and look up Ceri Jones facebook profile for photo...

jkchambers

Snap on front page of Irish Times today. Article dosent have snap
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0528/1224316807694.html

louthguy25

Such a shame killing such a mighty fish, some people dont realise how long it would take this fish to reach this size and when it would spawn it would pass on its huge growth genes....
Glory hunter is all i can say:mad: and how did he miss the 25lb released trout a couple of years ago

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

lovely trout, shame it was killed. Id rather see an enlarged pic of a live trout in a pub than a stuffed one. also, its not the biggest in 118 years! http://www.independent.ie/national-news/anglers-weight-not-in-vain-2168590.html

peter74

It is very sad to see a such beautiful fish to die. Memories are much more then fish hanging on the wall in pub.
It could have grown to irish record in a few years.
This trout I hope , will have brighter future and might already grown to record size.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/anglers-weight-not-in-vain-2168590.html

ironbluedun

Shameful that the IFI allow such fish like this to be killed. What is wrong with them. Its 2012 not 1912 come on. Some byelaws to protect wild brown trout and stop this madness.

viper123

peter74 wrote: »

It is very sad to see a such beautiful fish to die. Memories are much more then fish hanging on the wall in pub.
It could have grown to irish record in a few years.
This trout I hope , will have brighter future and might already grown to record size.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/anglers-weight-not-in-vain-2168590.html

That is a brilliant picture of a vividly coloured trout and does far more justice to the species than the picture of the dried up shriveled fish held outside the put in the OP...

Zzippy

ironbluedun wrote: »

Shameful that the IFI allow such fish like this to be killed. What is wrong with them. Its 2012 not 1912 come on. Some byelaws to protect wild brown trout and stop this madness.

While I agree with the sentiment that these fish should be protected, it is not IFI's remit to be prescriptive when it comes to legislation. Byelaws arise from an identified need for legislation, or from public pressure, and must be preceded by public consultation. If you feel strongly about it, make your views known to IFI - if enough people do this then they have a remit to act and consult on legislation. Only the government/minister can introduce legislation, IFI can only request a byelaw, and only following public consultation.

Look at the other side of the coin, if IFI was prescriptive and went about making byelaws for everything they would be castigated for it, people would be on here complaining about them regulating everything, and fishing would involve a lot more red tape.

ironbluedun

Zzippy wrote: »

While I agree with the sentiment that these fish should be protected, it is not IFI's remit to be prescriptive when it comes to legislation. Byelaws arise from an identified need for legislation, or from public pressure, and must be preceded by public consultation. If you feel strongly about it, make your views known to IFI - if enough people do this then they have a remit to act and consult on legislation. Only the government/minister can introduce legislation, IFI can only request a byelaw, and only following public consultation.

Look at the other side of the coin, if IFI was prescriptive and went about making byelaws for everything they would be castigated for it, people would be on here complaining about them regulating everything, and fishing would involve a lot more red tape.

I agree and i know that the IFI dont make the laws. But what are they doing to LOBBY for laws to be brought into force to put an end to this madness for once and for all. Do trout stocks have to be nearly wiped out? What does it take? Theres no point in saying write letters we are way beyond that. Action is needed not more words, letters and reports. Action, and action now. Surely someone cares?

coolhandspan

ah yeah still a 4 fish limit, kill a 25 lb fish and then stuff him???. stocks down 20per cent. if we dont go catch and release soon we are in real trouble. are people blind to this . what is wrong with a one fish limit ??:mad:

jkchambers

Zzippy wrote: »

While I agree with the sentiment that these fish should be protected, it is not IFI's remit to be prescriptive when it comes to legislation. Byelaws arise from an identified need for legislation, or from public pressure, and must be preceded by public consultation. If you feel strongly about it, make your views known to IFI - if enough people do this then they have a remit to act and consult on legislation. Only the government/minister can introduce legislation, IFI can only request a byelaw, and only following public consultation.

Look at the other side of the coin, if IFI was prescriptive and went about making byelaws for everything they would be castigated for it, people would be on here complaining about them regulating everything, and fishing would involve a lot more red tape.

I dont know that you are correct there. IFI can recommend a bye law to the Minister , he signs it and then the public have a period where they can appeal to the high court if they dont like it and have the funds to pay the legal costs. We had this recently when , just before Christmas the Minister, on advise of IFI, signed in the infamous salmon bye law 888 banning the use of worms and anything other than single barbless hooks for angling for ALL species on lots of coarse/pike waters such as the whole Fergus System including the many coarse/pike lakes. There was no public consultation on this bye law. It had to be recinded because of the outcry from National Angling Federations representing pike, trout , salmon and trout anglers
I was a pike angler representative on the IFI Brown Trout Policy Review Group and I strongly advocated catch and release for Corrib and Masks ferox trout. It is thought that there are only around 700 or 800 of them and they deserve to be protected.

peter74

This one is from today from Corrib. Released unharmed after photo.
Photo on the wall looks much better than stuffed fish

Zzippy

jkchambers wrote: »

I dont know that you are correct there. IFI can recommend a bye law to the Minister , he signs it and then the public have a period where they can appeal to the high court if they dont like it and have the funds to pay the legal costs. We had this recently when , just before Christmas the Minister, on advise of IFI, signed in the infamous salmon bye law 888 banning the use of worms and anything other than single barbless hooks for angling for ALL species on lots of coarse/pike waters such as the whole Fergus System including the many coarse/pike lakes. There was no public consultation on this bye law. It had to be recinded because of the outcry from National Angling Federations representing pike, trout , salmon and trout anglers
I was a pike angler representative on the IFI Brown Trout Policy Review Group and I strongly advocated catch and release for Corrib and Masks ferox trout. It is thought that there are only around 700 or 800 of them and they deserve to be protected.

The current Corrib trout regulations (byelaws) were introduced in 2008 following public consultation - which staff at the time were told was required. I can't comment on the 888 byelaw which was badly conceived and badly worded from the start, I don't know who was involved in that.

I agree with you on C&R for ferox, and I'm glad you advocated that! I haven't seen the draft policy yet, I hope its included...

dodderangler

Ffs that's ridiculous that fish should've been put back take pics first and release and what's worse is year before he had caught a 19 lb trout and it was killed and stuffed aswell I wouldn't rent him a boat or bring him out if that's his attitude towards big fish
I'd tell him t piss of back to Wales and do it there

jkchambers

Zzippy wrote: »

The current Corrib trout regulations (byelaws) were introduced in 2008 following public consultation - which staff at the time were told was required. I can't comment on the 888 byelaw which was badly conceived and badly worded from the start, I don't know who was involved in that.

I agree with you on C&R for ferox, and I'm glad you advocated that! I haven't seen the draft policy yet, I hope its included...

It isnt

uch

peter74 wrote: »

This one is from today from Corrib. Released unharmed after photo.
Photo on the wall looks much better than stuffed fish

Well done that Man for returning such a beautiful creature.

Paparazzo

If anyone wants to start a thread on catch and release, go ahead. This is about a record trout.

The one released a few years ago wasn't officially weighed was it? Do weights from the boat count even with a registered scales? It's a much nicer fish than this new one, although I'd like to see a picture of this one right after it was caught.
Roach dead bait is the way to catch big fish all right. Wonder what dept he caught it in?

jkchambers

Paparazzo wrote: »

If anyone wants to start a thread on catch and release, go ahead. This is about a record trout.

The one released a few years ago wasn't officially weighed was it? Do weights from the boat count even with a registered scales? It's a much nicer fish than this new one, although I'd like to see a picture of this one right after it was caught.
Roach dead bait is the way to catch big fish all right. Wonder what dept he caught it in?

I would think in deeper water. When char were present the ferox trout used to feed pretty exclusively on char

jkchambers

http://www.mayotoday.ie/index.php/browse-mayo-news-by-category/fishing-a-angling/item/4747-trout-rescue-operation-underway-in-drought-hit-cong-canal.html

Patolagola

Some times I have to laugh at how many times anglers jump on the " oh that should have been put back " wagon!

To all the people on this tread say it should have been released, a trout that size is coming near the end of its life and like every living creature its spawns less and less the older it gets.

If this fish was killed " which I'm not sure it was " the effect would be less than someone killing a 3lb trout.

I know there is people who are 100% catch and release which I applaud but TBH there is NOTHING wrong with an angler keeping a fish for the table, full stop and those that keep smaller trout are doing more damage than people that keep bigger and older trout.

So rather than site on a computer and berate people for keeping fish and the IFI for something that they can do nothing about why not go and help stop the poaching?.... Join the IFI and put in the work!

And before its said, No I am not IFI. I am a catch and release angler but have no problem with people taking the odd fish home for dinner.

louthguy25 wrote: »

Such a shame killing such a mighty fish, some people dont realise how long it would take this fish to reach this size and when it would spawn it would pass on its huge growth genes....
Glory hunter is all i can say and how did he miss the 25lb released trout a couple of years ago

What makes you think this fish has special growth genes? it grew that size because it evaded death for a long time. Its eggs would be the same as all trout.

Daroxtar

Patolagola wrote: »

What makes you think this fish has special growth genes? it grew that size because it evaded death for a long time. Its eggs would be the same as all trout.

It has special survival genes that allow it to evade death.

Bizzum

I can't understand why anyone would want to kill a fish like this. That's just me though, and doesn't mean it's wrong to do so. A couple of points though.

Trout genetic sampling on the Corrib has shown exactly where Ferox Trout spawn. They don't fall out of the sky as double figure fish. I believe too many Ferox Trout are taken post spawning in the spring. What impact would a ban on fishing for Trout on the Cong river have on Ferox Trout numbers?

Catching large, aged Ferox Trout in deep water even C&R can't be too good for them. These old teenage fish could surely do without being dragged from the depths. I wonder what are the prospects of survival on an old lady like this one? again even fishing C&R?

Bizzum

Patolagola wrote: »

Some times I have to laugh at how many times anglers jump on the " oh that should have been put back " wagon!

To all the people on this tread say it should have been released, a trout that size is coming near the end of its life and like every living creature its spawns less and less the older it gets.

If this fish was killed " which I'm not sure it was " the effect would be less than someone killing a 3lb trout.

I know there is people who are 100% catch and release which I applaud but TBH there is NOTHING wrong with an angler keeping a fish for the table, full stop and those that keep smaller trout are doing more damage than people that keep bigger and older trout.

So rather than site on a computer and berate people for keeping fish and the IFI for something that they can do nothing about why not go and help stop the poaching?.... Join the IFI and put in the work!

And before its said, No I am not IFI. I am a catch and release angler but have no problem with people taking the odd fish home for dinner.




What makes you think this fish has special growth genes? it grew that size because it evaded death for a long time. Its eggs would be the same as all trout.

I agree with much of your post.
To address the last point. Ferox trout are genetically distinct. Otherwise the Trout genetic survey on the Corrib could not have isolated them from their Corrib comrades.

ironbluedun

Patolagola wrote: »

Some times I have to laugh at how many times anglers jump on the " oh that should have been put back " wagon!

To all the people on this tread say it should have been released, a trout that size is coming near the end of its life and like every living creature its spawns less and less the older it gets.

If this fish was killed " which I'm not sure it was " the effect would be less than someone killing a 3lb trout.

I know there is people who are 100% catch and release which I applaud but TBH there is NOTHING wrong with an angler keeping a fish for the table, full stop and those that keep smaller trout are doing more damage than people that keep bigger and older trout.

So rather than site on a computer and berate people for keeping fish and the IFI for something that they can do nothing about why not go and help stop the poaching?.... Join the IFI and put in the work!

And before its said, No I am not IFI. I am a catch and release angler but have no problem with people taking the odd fish home for dinner.




What makes you think this fish has special growth genes? it grew that size because it evaded death for a long time. Its eggs would be the same as all trout.

Nobody is jumping on a 'put them back wagon'! Many say that there is nothing wrong with keeping a trout for the table. This is debatable and I tend to disagree these days. We must weigh it up in the context of a modern fishery.

OUR lakes are under a lot of pressure from all angles.
Nobody ever mentions the fact that the angler has improved considerably over the past 30 years. And anglers are now more efficient than they were in the past. Just look at the technology involved now, better rods, reels, lines, flies, hooks, baits, boats, float tubes, kayaks, engines, electric engines, fish-finders etc etc this massive improvement in angling technology has made a impact on fish stocks. No doubt about it. I am not saying we should revert to 1930s tackle, but it is an important factor to consider.

It may sound a little bizzare but even things like infrastructure improvements have had an affect as well. For example an angler can travel longer distances in shorter time, therefore popoular venues receive more attention and hence more angling pressure in shorter intensified bursts, for eg mayfly time on corrib sheelin etc.

The availability of real-time online information and reports designed to promote angling and draw anglers from far and wide also has an effect.

These days there are even more well equipped and knowledgeable anglers chasing lower stock levels. So it it OK for 1000s of anglers to kill one a day for the table anymore? Considering the above can stocks cope with this? I really do not think so.

That's not even taking into account the ever present and more commonly blamed affects of poaching, pollution, predators, competitors, invasive species, water abstraction, drainage, unofficial drainage, loss of spawning habitat etc etc.

It seems to me that the authority entrusted with the safeguard of our wild fisheries have little appetite for real protection of trout stocks (That's not a dig its just my experience). This is very unfortunate, leaving it up to anglers to self regulate is not working.

I don't want to lecture anyone or shove my views down their necks, but we must think about what we are doing, and think hard. Next time you kill a wild trout for the table whether it be 1lb or 25lb is the meal or the big trophy on the wall worth the sacrifice and a contribution to the continued decline of wild trout stocks.

SeaFields

Some good points Ironblue and well made.

Zzippy

Bizzum wrote: »

I can't understand why anyone would want to kill a fish like this. That's just me though, and doesn't mean it's wrong to do so. A couple of points though.

Trout genetic sampling on the Corrib has shown exactly where Ferox Trout spawn. They don't fall out of the sky as double figure fish. I believe too many Ferox Trout are taken post spawning in the spring. What impact would a ban on fishing for Trout on the Cong river have on Ferox Trout numbers?

Catching large, aged Ferox Trout in deep water even C&R can't be too good for them. These old teenage fish could surely do without being dragged from the depths. I wonder what are the prospects of survival on an old lady like this one? again even fishing C&R?

Ferox trout are surprisingly resilient and tolerate catch-and-release quite well. There have been 2 tagging studies done on Mask and Corrib, where fish were caught on rod and line (trolling), then had radio tags surgically implanted, and released again. The survival rate was very high, and fish were tracked for several years afterwards (tag battery life was approx. 3 years). Quite a number of the fish were subsequently re-caught by anglers, with some of these released again, and these fish again survived the experience.

Scientific studies also suggest that older fish contribute less to reproduction - fertility declines, egg viability declines, and that removing big old fish will not have a huge effect on the population. I'm not saying I approve of killing it, but that fish had probably spawned at least 5-6 times (ferox seem to spawn only once every 2 years each) and had probably contributed handsomely to the gene pool.

Bizzum

Zzippy wrote: »

Ferox trout are surprisingly resilient and tolerate catch-and-release quite well. There have been 2 tagging studies done on Mask and Corrib, where fish were caught on rod and line (trolling), then had radio tags surgically implanted, and released again. The survival rate was very high, and fish were tracked for several years afterwards (tag battery life was approx. 3 years). Quite a number of the fish were subsequently re-caught by anglers, with some of these released again, and these fish again survived the experience.

Scientific studies also suggest that older fish contribute less to reproduction - fertility declines, egg viability declines, and that removing big old fish will not have a huge effect on the population. I'm not saying I approve of killing it, but that fish had probably spawned at least 5-6 times (ferox seem to spawn only once every 2 years each) and had probably contributed handsomely to the gene pool.

I know a huge amount of scientific work was done on the Corrib. Any idea about the sample size? Also the age profile of the sample?
My point was specifically relating to the old timers as opposed to Ferox trout in their prime.
On your second point: You are being generous to Ferox stating that they spawn every 2 years. Spawning takes a huge toll on they and many don't even spawn every second year. There is also a school of thought that the real big hen fish grow real big because in fact they have quit spawning altogether and thus put all their energy into growth.
You are quite correct, in my opinion, on the impact to the F Trout population on killing the real big old ladies. I wouldn't knock one on the head myself but I try and be a realist as much as I can!

What would your opinion be on my earlier question regarding the Cong river? Would you not think a total ban on Trout fishing have a positive impact on Ferox Trout numbers? Is this not the most effictive way to preserve their numbers?

Bizzum

ironbluedun wrote: »

Nobody is jumping on a 'put them back wagon'! Many say that there is nothing wrong with keeping a trout for the table. This is debatable and I tend to disagree these days. We must weigh it up in the context of a modern fishery.

OUR lakes are under a lot of pressure from all angles.
Nobody ever mentions the fact that the angler has improved considerably over the past 30 years. And anglers are now more efficient than they were in the past. Just look at the technology involved now, better rods, reels, lines, flies, hooks, baits, boats, float tubes, kayaks, engines, electric engines, fish-finders etc etc this massive improvement in angling technology has made a impact on fish stocks. No doubt about it. I am not saying we should revert to 1930s tackle, but it is an important factor to consider.

It may sound a little bizzare but even things like infrastructure improvements have had an affect as well. For example an angler can travel longer distances in shorter time, therefore popoular venues receive more attention and hence more angling pressure in shorter intensified bursts, for eg mayfly time on corrib sheelin etc.

The availability of real-time online information and reports designed to promote angling and draw anglers from far and wide also has an effect.

These days there are even more well equipped and knowledgeable anglers chasing lower stock levels. So it it OK for 1000s of anglers to kill one a day for the table anymore? Considering the above can stocks cope with this? I really do not think so.

That's not even taking into account the ever present and more commonly blamed affects of poaching, pollution, predators, competitors, invasive species, water abstraction, drainage, unofficial drainage, loss of spawning habitat etc etc.

It seems to me that the authority entrusted with the safeguard of our wild fisheries have little appetite for real protection of trout stocks (That's not a dig its just my experience). This is very unfortunate, leaving it up to anglers to self regulate is not working.

I don't want to lecture anyone or shove my views down their necks, but we must think about what we are doing, and think hard. Next time you kill a wild trout for the table whether it be 1lb or 25lb is the meal or the big trophy on the wall worth the sacrifice and a contribution to the continued decline of wild trout stocks.

I would broadly agree with several points here.
However...........(There's always an "however":)):
I think it's disingeneous to IFI and the many progressive angling clubs throughout the catchment that I would be familar with not to mention the ongoing instream enhancements year after year. Not to mention the protection work or environmental works that are carried out day in day out.

Just for clarity could you point out what "real protection of trout stocks" is?

Zzippy

Bizzum wrote: »

I know a huge amount of scientific work was done on the Corrib. Any idea about the sample size? Also the age profile of the sample?
My point was specifically relating to the old timers as opposed to Ferox trout in their prime.
On your second point: You are being generous to Ferox stating that they spawn every 2 years. Spawning takes a huge toll on they and many don't even spawn every second year. There is also a school of thought that the real big hen fish grow real big because in fact they have quit spawning altogether and thus put all their energy into growth.
You are quite correct, in my opinion, on the impact to the F Trout population on killing the real big old ladies. I wouldn't knock one on the head myself but I try and be a realist as much as I can!

Tbh it wouldn't make biological sense for an animal to continue to grow after ending their reproductive life - the primary reason for being for all animals is to pass on their genes.

The every second year comes from the radio-tracking results, fish were tracked over several years and only appeared in the Cong River at spawning time on average every 2 years.

The sample size was 30-50 on each lake, I don't know the exact details, with a size range of about 6-15lbs, so it included a number of big girls. I know the Corrib Predator guys have recaptured big ferox (16-20lbs) a number of times, they can be identified by photos of the spot pattern and old scars etc. These guys handle fish very well before release so I would imagine their fish survive quite well.

Bizzum wrote: »

What would your opinion be on my earlier question regarding the Cong river? Would you not think a total ban on Trout fishing have a positive impact on Ferox Trout numbers? Is this not the most effictive way to preserve their numbers?

My personal opinion is that the season should open much later on the Cong River/Canal. It was moved from March 1 to March 17 to protect the big trout that are still hanging around, but IMO should be moved to May1. After this most of the big fish are gone. In fact, the canal is bone dry now so you wouldn't catch much anyway.

I don't think a total ban is either warranted or fair on local anglers. I would much rather see a total ban on killing fish over a certain size. I think a slot limit of 13-16 inches or thereabouts would be the best way of protecting stocks on Corrib while allowing limited exploitation for the table.

Bizzum

Zzippy wrote: »

My personal opinion is that the season should open much later on the Cong River/Canal. It was moved from March 1 to March 17 to protect the big trout that are still hanging around, but IMO should be moved to May1. After this most of the big fish are gone. In fact, the canal is bone dry now so you wouldn't catch much anyway.

I don't think a total ban is either warranted or fair on local anglers. I would much rather see a total ban on killing fish over a certain size. I think a slot limit of 13-16 inches or thereabouts would be the best way of protecting stocks on Corrib while allowing limited exploitation for the table.

I'm rushing out the door now but even though I asked the question suggesting a total ban, it would not be my opinion as the best solution. Often time's outright bans backfire or don't get the desired result.
The tagging surveys show when trout spawning run and be in the river so I think your opinion is fairly spot on what I'd be thinking too.
The limit of 13-16 inches would of course have merit but is difficult to police.
Anyway I'm outta here!

dodderangler

Sure the size limit on most rivers and lakes is between 9-12 inches
That in my opinion is a disgrace
I for one wouldn't kill a fish under 16 inches so I very rarely kill fish anyway but just think a fish of that size should've been put back to live out the rest of its life it's avoided been caught and predators for that long seems a waste IMO

Paparazzo

ironbluedun wrote: »

Nobody is jumping on a 'put them back wagon'!

Ehhh, have you read the thread? I was using multiquote to highlite all the people saying he's a disgrace for taking it, he should have put it back and even "piss off back to wales", but it was almost every post on the thread.


There's too many people up on their high horse, maybe ban fishing for wild fish except on a few fish farms to keep some people happy :rolleyes:

Bruthal

louthguy25 wrote: »

Such a shame killing such a mighty fish, some people dont realise how long it would take this fish to reach this size and when it would spawn it would pass on its huge growth genes....
Glory hunter is all i can say:mad: and how did he miss the 25lb released trout a couple of years ago

More than a shame in my opinion. A disgrace.

Bruthal

Patolagola wrote: »

there is NOTHING wrong with an angler keeping a fish for the table.

What about for the trophy cabinet?

bayliner

dodderangler wrote: »

Sure the size limit on most rivers and lakes is between 9-12 inches
That in my opinion is a disgrace
I for one wouldn't kill a fish under 16 inches so I very rarely kill fish anyway but just think a fish of that size should've been put back to live out the rest of its life it's avoided been caught and predators for that long seems a waste IMO

its 14inches on lough ree, ive about 30 trout so far(not all on ree ) but havent killed one all season, not saying i wont though, i usually have a few a yr!!! but nothing under 2lb

Daroxtar

Funnily enough I wouldn't keep a fish over 2 lb. I find that they acquire a stronger taste once they get above that and they don't fit on the pan either. I also think that in the "food pyramid" scheme of things there are millions of small fish which provide food for the bigger ones and far fewer of the big ones so i don't see the harm of talking a 12 inch trout but would balk at taking a 24 inch one. That's just me though.....

ironbluedun

Bizzum wrote: »

I would broadly agree with several points here.
However...........(There's always an "however":)):
I think it's disingeneous to IFI and the many progressive angling clubs throughout the catchment that I would be familar with not to mention the ongoing instream enhancements year after year. Not to mention the protection work or environmental works that are carried out day in day out.

Just for clarity could you point out what "real protection of trout stocks" is?

Not trying to be disingenuous or take a swipe at the IFI or clubs that do work on Irish loughs (i am a member of one) but its my honest belief that more could be done by the IFI that's all. I just wish they would do more to protect trout stocks, yes they do indeed do a lot of good work and i have not said that they do not, but its blatantly clear that more does need to be done.

As for protection of trout stocks there are loads of measures easily done,
A four fish bag limit is too high these days it should be much lower one trout per day is enough for anyone. Salmon anglers can catch and keep 10 fish yet with trout its virtually unlimited. Why?
A ban on killing large and rare Ferox.
A ban on early season for trolling for trout.
A ban on the use of maggot's and worms in trout fisheries especially tributaries and nursery systems.
A ban on the targeting and fishing for migrating spawning trout that are moving into in tributaries in September.
A total and outright ban on catch and kill competitions.
A review of the size limit rule, surely larger fish should be returned and if someone wants to kill then surely its better if they kill trout in the 1-2lb range rather than the bigger ones.
A license fee for those who want to kill, let them contribute if they want to take.

These some of the measures that could be brought in, largely without major cost. Sorry its back to the IFI again, not because they are an easy target but because they are the ones in the hot seat, so have they got the vision to do it?

fisherking

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0531/1224316987828.html

garancafan

I am a believer in catch and release for the most part (i.e. I will keep a one pounder for the pan). However I find myself in a dilemma when it comes to ferox trout. Given that they are cannibals would it not be better for stock numbers if they were targeted and killed?

Bizzum

garancafan wrote: »

dilemma when it comes to ferox trout. Given that they are cannibals would it not be better for stock numbers if they were targeted and killed?

The bigger ones feed almost exclusively on Roach, so minimal impact on Trout numbers.

Bizzum

ironbluedun wrote: »

Not trying to be disingenuous or take a swipe at the IFI or clubs that do work on Irish loughs (i am a member of one) but its my honest belief that more could be done by the IFI that's all. I just wish they would do more to protect trout stocks, yes they do indeed do a lot of good work and i have not said that they do not, but its blatantly clear that more does need to be done.

As for protection of trout stocks there are loads of measures easily done,
A four fish bag limit is too high these days it should be much lower one trout per day is enough for anyone. Salmon anglers can catch and keep 10 fish yet with trout its virtually unlimited. Why?
A ban on killing large and rare Ferox.
A ban on early season for trolling for trout.
A ban on the use of maggot's and worms in trout fisheries especially tributaries and nursery systems.
A ban on the targeting and fishing for migrating spawning trout that are moving into in tributaries in September.
A total and outright ban on catch and kill competitions.
A review of the size limit rule, surely larger fish should be returned and if someone wants to kill then surely its better if they kill trout in the 1-2lb range rather than the bigger ones.
A license fee for those who want to kill, let them contribute if they want to take.

These some of the measures that could be brought in, largely without major cost. Sorry its back to the IFI again, not because they are an easy target but because they are the ones in the hot seat, so have they got the vision to do it?

Thanks for the reply. IFI enforce legislation, not draught it. In many cases the measures you speak of could be easily implemented by the angling clubs. EG. There is no state bag limit for Trout (though I hear talk of one!), any club could vote into being a 1 or 2 fish bag limit if the will was there. Or indeed catch and kill competitions.
I would be in broad agreement with several of the measures you raise. As anglers we should keep pressure on all relevant bodies and seek improvements.
If the vision isn't there let us be the first to remind them of that!