Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

PIKE ARE NATIVE - IFI

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    tin79
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    madred006
    Registered Users Posts: 631 ✭✭✭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 .


  • Options
    #34
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #35
    madred006
    Registered Users Posts: 631 ✭✭✭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 .


  • Options
    #36
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    madred006
    Registered Users Posts: 631 ✭✭✭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 .


  • Options
    #38
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,652 ✭✭✭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??


  • Options
    #40
    madred006
    Registered Users Posts: 631 ✭✭✭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 .


  • Options
    #41
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,652 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #43
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #44
    madred006
    Registered Users Posts: 631 ✭✭✭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 .


  • Options
    #45
    Bizzum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,034 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #46
    Bizzum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,034 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    Flysfisher
    Registered Users Posts: 249 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    OpenYourEyes
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 3,068 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    Flysfisher
    Registered Users Posts: 249 ✭✭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.:)


  • Options
    #50
    OpenYourEyes
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 3,068 Mod ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #51
    jkchambers
    Registered Users Posts: 380 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    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 would base your hypothesis on scarce observation over clear DNA evidence? Fair enough, you are entitled to do so but i am astounded.
    As for history not being made. It is quite the opposite. History is being revised and rewritten every day as we learn more - as is science.


  • Options
    #53
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    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.

    Serious question - do you honestly think they were present in other areas previously? And do you honestly think they were actually eradicated from any large waterbody? Have you any idea of the scale of what you're suggesting? If fisheries haven't been able to do it over the last century, with their resources and modern equipment, how would it have been possible in the past with more limited resources and inferior equipment?


  • Options
    #54
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    Yes, I do. And fisheries have cleared pike from systems.

    I have no vested interest or overwhelming desire to see pike in every river and lake but as an environmentalist I can see that this particular species could very well have been native to all waters on this small island at some time in the past 8000 years. Whether they should be reintroduced is a different matter and I'm not that pushed about it, as they are plentiful elsewhere. I just don't understand the reluctance to accept the fact that they are native and that they may once have been widespread.


  • Options
    #55
    tin79
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭tin79


    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.

    And thus man sought to fool himself.

    You are free to believe what you want to of course. From your posts I doubt you have the perspective to objectively read the report and judge it on content alone as you seem to have a chip on your shoulder. Your own bias is blinkering you IMO.

    I haven't had a chance to read the full study yet BTW and the IFI summary is a little lacking in detail. I would like to see the full paper before I commit.

    The authors are geneticists BTW not fisheries scientists.


  • Options
    #56
    tin79
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭tin79


    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.:)

    Personally I think you are making some assumptions there.

    Firstly Salmon and sea trout would have been in vast abundance back then and the fact that they were migratory and highly mobile through river systems made then easy to target by primitive methods.

    If you look at the sea fish listed they are all recognized eating species. Your assumptions are based only on presence in Irish waters at the time. If that's the case where are herring on that list, mackerel, dogfish, sprat, ray, mullet. Where they all absent too?

    No they were there but they were just not part of the Mesolithic diet. So lack of identification of fish bones cannot be 100% reconciled with presence or absence.


  • Options
    #57
    tin79
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭tin79


    Zzippy wrote: »
    Serious question - do you honestly think they were present in other areas previously? And do you honestly think they were actually eradicated from any large waterbody? Have you any idea of the scale of what you're suggesting? If fisheries haven't been able to do it over the last century, with their resources and modern equipment, how would it have been possible in the past with more limited resources and inferior equipment?

    That's only if you assume removal from a system can only be man made.

    Removal could have seen by disease, lack of competitiveness, ecological change. Look at the burbot in the UK. They weren't eradicated but are pretty much gone now.


  • Options
    #58
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    Vihaan Sparse Speakeasy wrote: »
    Yes, I do. And fisheries have cleared pike from systems.

    I have no vested interest or overwhelming desire to see pike in every river and lake but as an environmentalist I can see that this particular species could very well have been native to all waters on this small island at some time in the past 8000 years. Whether they should be reintroduced is a different matter and I'm not that pushed about it, as they are plentiful elsewhere. I just don't understand the reluctance to accept the fact that they are native and that they may once have been widespread.

    Please, could you name these systems where fisheries have actually eradicated pike?

    I have no reluctance to accept pike can be native, I'm a trained biologist and the scientific evidence now points to natural colonisation, so I've no problem with that. I do have a problem with people extrapolating from that the inference that pike were once widespread i.e. present all around Ireland. There is no scientific evidence for this. Fish have natural colonisation pathways - migratory (diadromous) fish can colonise from the sea to all parts of a waterbody connected and accessible from the sea. Freshwater fish have greater difficulty without human intervention. At the end of the ice age, its been postulated that what is now the Irish Sea was more like a lake, with very reduced salinity levels. Its easy to see how pike would have colonised the east coast therefore. Its quite a stretch to see how they could naturally colonise the western seaboard, and there is no scientific evidence that they ever did.
    tin79 wrote: »
    That's only if you assume removal from a system can only be man made.

    Removal could have seen by disease, lack of competitiveness, ecological change. Look at the burbot in the UK. They weren't eradicated but are pretty much gone now.

    My post was in reply to Vihaan Sparse Speakeasy's post where he said
    it has always been suspected that they are absent from some areas because they were eradicated to preserve game fish
    I didn't assume anything.


  • Options
    #59
    8k2q1gfcz9s5d4
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭8k2q1gfcz9s5d4


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

    Thats fine, ignore science.


  • Options
    #60
    tin79
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭tin79


    Zzippy wrote: »

    My post was in reply to Srameen's post where he said......

    I didn't assume anything.

    Apologies Zzippy. I missed that.

    I also meant to say "take the general assumption" rather than suggesting you personally assumed it. Didn't phrase it very well.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    Zzippy wrote: »



    My post was in reply to Srameen's post where he said I didn't assume anything.
    http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail1988042000038?opendocument

    http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2007-03-27.1697.0

    http://www.angling-in-ireland.com/archive/pages/Pike%20Policy%20Report%205.htm


Advertisement