PIKE ARE NATIVE - IFI

jkchambers

I never thought that I would be able to post this
http://www.fisheriesireland.ie/Press-releases/new-study-reveals-pike-native-to-ireland.html

Bizzum

The power of DNA analysis;)

A lot of reading in the pdf file linked at the bottom of the article.

bencarvosso

A lot of people on here very quiet..... this is big news

gary29428

Very interesting reading for sure. I can only hope it might stop the mass slaughter of pike in gill nets on Corrib every February....somehow I doubt it.:mad::mad::mad::mad:

Budawanny

they took the download down for the moment so i cant check.
Im not sure if it mentions Corrib specifically, but the point with all species is that they should not be allowed to be introduced to places where they are not native. Just because there is an indication that Pike maybe native to parts of Ireland does not mean its ok for it to exist in places in Ireland where it is not native.

ardinn

Budawanny wrote: »

but the point with all species is that they should not be allowed to be introduced to places where they are not native. Just because there is an indication that Pike maybe native to parts of Ireland does not mean its ok for it to exist in places in Ireland where it is not native.

Disagree entirely - but opinions n all that!!

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

Its amazing news. I honestly cant see how IFI would get away with the gill netting of pike (and any other fish that swims into the gill net) from the western lakes any more. Its a total waste of money, as pike and trout have lived there side by side for the last 8k years.

Pj!

Budawanny wrote: »

they took the download down for the moment so i cant check.
Im not sure if it mentions Corrib specifically, but the point with all species is that they should not be allowed to be introduced to places where they are not native. Just because there is an indication that Pike maybe native to parts of Ireland does not mean its ok for it to exist in places in Ireland where it is not native.

It would appear that pike are very much native to Corrib.

They seem to be non-native to the Barrow and the Lee. But that's probably not much use to the trouty folk...

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Budawanny wrote: »

they took the download down for the moment so i cant check.
Im not sure if it mentions Corrib specifically, but the point with all species is that they should not be allowed to be introduced to places where they are not native. Just because there is an indication that Pike maybe native to parts of Ireland does not mean its ok for it to exist in places in Ireland where it is not native.

That doesn't hold at all. If any species is native then it is native to the country and not parts of it.

breghall

Vihaan Sparse Speakeasy wrote: »

That doesn't hold at all. If any species is native then it is native to the country and not parts of it.

So can i ask them to stock up the Slaney then, and save me travelling for miles to do some piking :P

ardinn

breghall wrote: »

So can i ask them to stock up the Slaney then, and save me travelling for miles to do some piking :P

I live right on the slaney too - Do it!!!!!!!!

mathepac

Vihaan Sparse Speakeasy wrote: »

That doesn't hold at all. If any species is native then it is native to the country and not parts of it.

That's soooo not true dude. Sarah Palins are native to Alaska but not Florida.

(I know she was born in Idaho (" I'se da Ho man, I'se da Ho") but that spoils the joke)

Flysfisher

Pike should not be introduced to rivers and lakes where our native fish are present.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Flysfisher wrote: »

Pike should not be introduced to rivers and lakes where our native fish are present.

According to the article Pike are probably our only native freshwater fish!

al_wal

Read this book a few years again which explains how many of our coarse fish came to the Islands in the west of Europe. Well worth a read. Even better now with the good news. http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/life-sciences/ecology-and-conservation/silent-summer-state-wildlife-britain-and-ireland

al_wal

Flysfisher wrote: »

Pike should not be introduced to rivers and lakes where our native fish are present.

I would agree with that and that should be true for all fish native or non native.

Zzippy

Vihaan Sparse Speakeasy wrote: »

That doesn't hold at all. If any species is native then it is native to the country and not parts of it.

Sorry but that's BS. Species have a native range, which is the area where they have naturally established. Pike are native to parts of Ireland. Pike are not found in lakes in Connemara, for example, so they are not native to Connemara. If they were introduced to Lough Inagh they would be an invasive species there.

Vihaan Sparse Speakeasy wrote: »

According to the article Pike are probably our only native freshwater fish!

No, salmon, trout, eels and lamprey also established naturally, as they are diadromous species.

ardinn wrote: »

Disagree entirely - but opinions n all that!!

So you think people should be allowed to move fish around and introduce new species to different waterbodies? That would be illegal.

Pj! wrote: »

It would appear that pike are very much native to Corrib.

They seem to be non-native to the Barrow and the Lee. But that's probably not much use to the trouty folk...

The article doesn't say anything about pike being native to Corrib, just to Ireland. You're extrapolating without any basis. Pike may be native to Corrib or they may have been introduced 150 years ago - the data is not there in this study to say which is true.

Budawanny

Vihaan Sparse Speakeasy wrote: »

That doesn't hold at all. If any species is native then it is native to the country and not parts of it.

That is both incorrect and irrelevant. you simply cannot go around playing god with Eco systems just because the species you want to introduce exists within a man made political or geographic boundary.

Budawanny

As an example, if someone introduced pike into one of the last few Artic Char refuges in Ireland , simply because Pike are native to Cavan, They are seriously guilty of a crime against nature.

dodderangler

gary29428 wrote: »

Very interesting reading for sure. I can only hope it might stop the mass slaughter of pike in gill nets on Corrib every February....somehow I doubt it.:mad::mad::mad::mad:

Same on derevara

Macy0161

Zzippy wrote: »

The article doesn't say anything about pike being native to Corrib, just to Ireland. You're extrapolating without any basis. Pike may be native to Corrib or they may have been introduced 150 years ago - the data is not there in this study to say which is true.

They shouldn't be killed in the meantime until it is confirmed, given this study though.

Zzippy

Macy0161 wrote: »

They shouldn't be killed in the meantime until it is confirmed, given this study though.

I didn't say they should!

ardinn

Zzippy wrote: »

So you think people should be allowed to move fish around and introduce new species to different waterbodies? That would be illegal.

No - But a blanket ban on introducing species to waters where they would

a) Flourish
b) Be of benefit the that particular body of water

Is silly and shortsighted.

If any animal or fish helps an area they should be introduced, simple.

I'm not saying someone should take it upon themselves to introduce species to areas they are not native but if proper research show an area would benefit then its a no brainer!

Zzippy

ardinn wrote: »

No - But a blanket ban on introducing species to waters where they would

a) Flourish
b) Be of benefit the that particular body of water

Is silly and shortsighted.

If any animal or fish helps an area they should be introduced, simple.

I'm not saying someone should take it upon themselves to introduce species to areas they are not native but if proper research show an area would benefit then its a no brainer!

The EU Habitats Directive is quite clear - species cannot be introduced to any habitat where they are not native. I know in the past species were transferred all over the place, but this is just not possible anymore under the existing legal framework. Ever heard of the "law of unintended consequences"?

ardinn

Zzippy wrote: »

The EU Habitats Directive is quite clear - species cannot be introduced to any habitat where they are not native. I know in the past species were transferred all over the place, but this is just not possible anymore under the existing legal framework. Ever heard of the "law of unintended consequences"?

I'm not debating whether or not it is legal - my point is that in some cases it would be beneficial and should be looked at case by case. for any species - be it land sea or air creatures. Not just a blanket ban!

Anyone who forms an opinion before they hear the issue is an idiot!

I may have pulled away from the main point a bit, I am not looking for pike to be introduced anywhere.

Zzippy

ardinn wrote: »

I'm not debating whether or not it is legal - my point is that in some cases it would be beneficial and should be looked at case by case. for any species - be it land sea or air creatures. Not just a blanket ban!

Anyone who forms an opinion before they hear the issue is an idiot!

I may have pulled away from the main point a bit, I am not looking for pike to be introduced anywhere.

Every habitat over time, no matter how many species it contains, finds a balance. Environmental law understandably strives to conserve habitats as they are, since nature has found a balance in that habitat. Meddling with habitats by introducing alien species (to that habitat) inevitably upsets the balance, and can have quite unintended consequences. It is illegal for very good reasons. Calling people idiots because they don't agree is, quite frankly, idiotic...

Flysfisher

Looks like this report is causing a bit of a stir, anyway I don't buy it for one minute. Pure nonsense.

ardinn

Zzippy wrote: »

Every habitat over time, no matter how many species it contains, finds a balance. Environmental law understandably strives to conserve habitats as they are, since nature has found a balance in that habitat. Meddling with habitats by introducing alien species (to that habitat) inevitably upsets the balance, and can have quite unintended consequences. It is illegal for very good reasons. Calling people idiots because they don't agree is, quite frankly, idiotic...

Thats not what I said but if you want to spin it that way go ahead!

dodderangler

Zzippy wrote: »

Every habitat over time, no matter how many species it contains, finds a balance.

Over a long long time it will
How many years are you talking here???
I'm just curious because in a way, introducing species to other lakes where they aren't present can be a huge downfall on the local species. One example would be to put perch in let's say the dodder.
They'd have it destroyed in year or two and the trout would slowly die off. Not entirely die off but would suffer alot giving the perch appetite for minnow and insects.
Another example though not related to fishing is the mink.
Released by "do gooders" a good while ago and so far local wildlife are still being destroyed by them.
IMO our local wildlife will never adapt to the mink. Same goes for species being put in places they aren't originally present

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

Flysfisher wrote: »

Looks like this report is causing a bit of a stir

ive only seen a handful of people online not believe it

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

dodderangler wrote: »

Over a long long time it will
How many years are you talking here???
I'm just curious because in a way, introducing species to other lakes where they aren't present can be a huge downfall on the local species. One example would be to put perch in let's say the dodder.
They'd have it destroyed in year or two and the trout would slowly die off. Not entirely die off but would suffer alot giving the perch appetite for minnow and insects.
Another example though not related to fishing is the mink.
Released by "do gooders" a good while ago and so far local wildlife are still being destroyed by them.
IMO our local wildlife will never adapt to the mink. Same goes for species being put in places they aren't originally present

There is no real answer, as it needs to be taken on a case by case situation. It took the Zander in the UK around 20-30 years to strike a balance.

tin79

Flysfisher wrote: »

Looks like this report is causing a bit of a stir, anyway I don't buy it for one minute. Pure nonsense.

I agree. This science thing is pure nonsense. We all know god created trout and the devil created pike. Criminals then stocked the pike into Ireland.

Its the only logical opinion.

madred006

Look at the harm Dace have caused along the upper barrow they have it virtually destroyed.So it's important to contain what is contained IMO .

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

madred006 wrote: »

Look at the harm Dace have caused along the upper barrow they have it virtually destroyed.So it's important to contain what is contained IMO .

But Dace are not native to Ireland!

madred006

Vihaan Sparse Speakeasy wrote: »

But Dace are not native to Ireland!

Yes fully understand that , that's why when most lads catch them they just throw them up in the banks , but point I'm making is that if they are not there and things are working there is no need to introduce them .

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

madred006 wrote: »

Yes fully understand that , that's why when most lads catch them they just throw them up in the banks , but point I'm making is that if they are not there and things are working there is no need to introduce them .

Should the same be said for Sea Eagles or Red Kites? If pike are native to Ireland who knows if they are now merely lost to some areas.

madred006

Vihaan Sparse Speakeasy wrote: »

Should the same be said for Sea Eagles or Red Kites? If pike are native to Ireland who knows if they are now merely lost to some areas.

Not sure about the above birds however based on the damage done by Dace to the river which I fish I still hold the opinion that's they shouldn't be introduced .I suspect the introduction of pike to Kerry mainly currane and leine wouldn't go down to well .

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

madred006 wrote: »

Not sure about the above birds however based on the damage done by Dace to the river which I fish I still hold the opinion that's they shouldn't be introduced .I suspect the introduction of pike to Kerry mainly currane and leine wouldn't go down to well .

The bird analogy is that they are native but eradicated from Ireland and now being re-introducedre-introduced. That reintroduction is to be heartily welcomed but it will change the dynamics of the eco-system and particularly as regards other raptors and prey species. That balance will sort itself out over time. I agree about Dace as they are nonnative. But pike are native but missing from some water systems.

Birdnuts

Vihaan Sparse Speakeasy wrote: »

If pike are native to Ireland who knows if they are now merely lost to some areas.

Could it be that Pike might be native to some watersheds but not to others?? A bit like the Shad or Arctic Charr??

madred006

Vihaan Sparse Speakeasy wrote: »

The bird analogy is that they are native but eradicated from Ireland and now being re-introducedre-introduced. That reintroduction is to be heartily welcomed but it will change the dynamics of the eco-system and particularly as regards other raptors and prey species. That balance will sort itself out over time. I agree about Dace as they are nonnative. But pike are native but missing from some water systems.

Can see where you are coming from and I suppose it's a valid point and agree also that over time nature will balance itself out personally I'd rather see a pike than a dace .

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Birdnuts wrote: »

Could it be that Pike might be native to some watersheds but not to others?? A bit like the Shad or Arctic Charr??

Always possible but they are so widespread that it has always been suspected that they are absent from some areas because they were eradicated to preserve game fish. Not unlike raptors were in the past. It's just a thought and i feel we should be more open to discussion on these issues but unfortunately anglers have a vested interest in particular species in particular waters.

Birdnuts

Vihaan Sparse Speakeasy wrote: »

Always possible but they are so widespread that it has always been suspected that they are absent from some areas because they were eradicated to preserve game fish..

I know this is all speculation on our part but might it also be the case that Pike were moved around watersheds by the hand of man??. A bit like the Nile Perch in Africa

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Birdnuts wrote: »

I know this is all speculation on our part but might it also be the case that Pike were moved around watersheds by the hand of man??. A bit like the Nile Perch in Africa

Perhaps but the DNA variations suggest otherwise. Two distinct groupings but enough variation within them to lean to an assumption that these populations in differing location have been there for up to 8000 years. Therefore deliberate stocking by human is unlikely. But who knows?

madred006

Vihaan Sparse Speakeasy wrote: »

Always possible but they are so widespread that it has always been suspected that they are absent from some areas because they were eradicated to preserve game fish. Not unlike raptors were in the past. It's just a thought and i feel we should be more open to discussion on these issues but unfortunately anglers have a vested interest in particular species in particular waters.

I think you have made a very valuable point in that yes we should be more open to discussion on these issues and IMO there are too many organisations representing us with little or no input at top level other than to fight their own little corner .

Bizzum

Flysfisher wrote: »

Looks like this report is causing a bit of a stir, anyway I don't buy it for one minute. Pure nonsense.

Where do you think it is wrong?

Bizzum

A general observation I would make is that different catchments within the country can be completely independent of each other, and differ hugely. Thus each catchment would have to be viewed as a seperate entity, even though they're within the one state.

Flysfisher

tin79 wrote: »

I agree. This science thing is pure nonsense. We all know god created trout and the devil created pike. Criminals then stocked the pike into Ireland.

Its the only logical opinion.

Yes your largely correct there, but no look one expert scientist says something writes a fancy report about what they Think what happened and then another one comes along and says something different. I have been listening to these fishery experts for years and little changes.

Me I will trust our history and heritage. It hasn't been wrong thus far.

Ps when you said criminals, you weren't too far wrong.

OpenYourEyes

Flysfisher wrote: »

Yes your largely correct there, but no look one expert scientist says something writes a fancy report about what they Think what happened and then another one comes along and says something different. I have been listening to these fishery experts for years and little changes.

Me I will trust our history and heritage. It hasn't been wrong thus far.

Ps when you said criminals, you weren't too far wrong.

The thing to do is to look at the evidence presented everytime someone says what they think - if their evidence is flawed reject what they said, if it isn't then accept what they said. And same goes for the next guy that comes along - did he use any new information in coming to his different theory? Were his methods as robust as the guy that came before? And of course if they offer no evidence then be skeptical. Have you got a source for anyone who has examined the amount of data those scientists have, who have come up with a contradictory theory? Have you reason to doubt our current knowledge of how population genetics?

To just reject something out of some mistrust of scientists (that have done a hell of a lot to benefit you and your fishing over the years) is sheer lunacy, and just backwards thinking!



Regarding the moving of Pike around the country - surely their numbers are healthy enough not to warrant any translocations? They might be native but absent from Lake X, but if there's plenty of them in Lakes A,B and C then there's no significant benefit in bringing them back to Lake X. So if there's no benefit in bringing them back to Lake X (maybe a minor benefit for Pike fishing), and there'd be a significant negative effect on the species already in the lake (and on any fishing of those species), then the overall outcome would be a negative one and it'd never get past any of the hurdles for it to be permitted! While the native species thing is obviously hugely important in introductions/re-introductions, it's just one of many criteria that have to be examined at the end of the day.

Flysfisher

From bones found at Mesolithic sites in Ireland. The fish diet of Mesolithic people was broken down salmon and trout 85% eels, bass, flounder and some plaice making up the remaining 15%.
Our first peoples didn't eat pike, when they ate everything else they could, why did they not eat pike? They would have been a lot easier for them to catch. They did not eat them because they were not here.
A fine fish, but alas not a native fish.
Science can be made but history can't.
Not saying any more on it.:)

OpenYourEyes

Flysfisher wrote: »

From bones found at Mesolithic sites in Ireland. The fish diet of Mesolithic people was broken down salmon and trout 85% eels, bass, flounder and some plaice making up the remaining 15%.
Our first peoples didn't eat pike, when they ate everything else they could, why did they not eat pike? They would have been a lot easier for them to catch. They did not eat them because they were not here.
A fine fish, but alas not a native fish.
Science can be made but history can't.
Not saying any more on it.:)

You do realise that the fossil record for absolutely everything provides a very very very limited picture of a very specific time and a very specific place? :rolleyes: If salmon and trout were found it means that salmon and trout were there, but just because Pike weren't found doesn't mean Pike weren't there!

The fossil record is limited and so can be deceptive. The genetic records offers a much more complete timeline of a species/population's history, and can help with our interpretations of the fossil/historic record.

Feel free to argue with scientists and their theories, but you can't just dismiss everything we know about population genetics because you don't like how complicated and fancy it sounds :rolleyes:
Edit: Well you can, but don't be surprised when nobody believes you and they tend to side with the team of scientists who have collectively spent decades researching this kind of thing!

jkchambers

I would remind the doubters of this report to look at it again. It is also signed off by Dr Martin O`Grady who, over the years, has written that pike were an introduced species.