fishing regulations possible additions

floattuber_lee

just wondered if there were any regulations that are not in the rule book that people would like to see added?

Personally i would like to see all brown trout of 10lb plus returned, and Salmon over 20lb returned. As these fish obviously have good genes and would keep a good strong set of genes in the pool so to speak! (just my opinion don't be giving me grief)

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

While I agree with releasing larger mature fish it has nothing to do with genetic make-up.

floattuber_lee

genetics have to play a part. it might not be the only reason but to grow to that size it must have something going for it. otherwise all fish would reach those sizes.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

floattuber_lee wrote: »

genetics have to play a part. it might not be the only reason but to grow to that size it must have something going for it. otherwise all fish would reach those sizes.

I don't want to drag your thread off topic but a fish surviving to maturity has an awful lot more factors in play than genetics I can assure you. It has "something " to do with it certainly but genetics as a sole argument for releasing larger fish is a weak angle.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

floattuber_lee wrote: »

just wondered if there were any regulations that are not in the rule book that people would like to see added?

A ban on blue barrel pike competitions, measuring boards only. Also, I think deadbaiting should not be allowed in pike matches. When there is a lot of prize money, im sure some "anglers" wait a bit longer than a few seconds to strike.
For the record, I dont fish any pike competitions, and I know most people that fish these matches are genuine anglers, but there will always be a few, and as prize money increases, so do their numbers.

A ban on keepnets in very hot weather. Very hard to enforce though.

100% C&R for bream, tench and Pike.

floattuber_lee

Zayden Jealous Pluto wrote: »

I don't want to drag your thread off topic but a fish surviving to maturity has an awful lot more factors in play than genetics I can assure you. It has "something " to do with it certainly but genetics as a sole argument for releasing larger fish is a weak angle.

Don't write posts assuming everyone is an idiot, i can assure you i am educated to a level to know and understand all trials and tribulations facing a fish from the start of its life. My point is a fish of that size will be genetically strong. Just to give you an idea of what i mean, if a fish is hatched with a deformed tail it probably won't have the power to feed or return to the river it hatched from... bad genes... a big strong healthy fish has good genetic make up. In fact you could go as far as to say every fish returning has good genes, the fact the fish has returned 5 times bigger than fish of the same cohort suggest it has excellent genes. In any case a female fish of those sizes would have many times more eggs than a smaller fish, increasing the chances of survival of her genes on to the next years fish. A male of those sizes will be more aggressive and stronger so he would have a greater chance of his genes passing on to the next generation.

(i did ask for no grief in my original post)

floattuber_lee

Noelle Jealous Penicillin wrote: »

A ban on blue barrel pike competitions, measuring boards only. Also, I think deadbaiting should not be allowed in pike matches. When there is a lot of prize money, im sure some "anglers" wait a bit longer than a few seconds to strike.
For the record, I dont fish any pike competitions, and I know most people that fish these matches are genuine anglers, but there will always be a few, and as prize money increases, so do their numbers.

A ban on keepnets in very hot weather. Very hard to enforce though.

100% C&R for bream, tench and Pike.

I'd agree with that. I'd love to see all competitions as a measuring board style, i hate seeing the dead fish from the competitions on Mask ans Corrib. I sometimes wonder if people forget that it is a lough a big one yes but still a lough. I have no problem with one for the pot, but to do it to get your name engraved on a trophy or to win money some how dirties the sport of fly fishing for me.

dodderangler

A ban on betting fish in lakes.
Almost every year ( wont mention the lake) I've seen nets like big keep nets around Reed beds and full of bream and tench but I've seen pike stuck outside them obviously from attacking the fish inside the nets thus leading to the pike dying. Been told these nets are for research on bream and tench numbers but the pike are in trouble over it.

Maybe I'm alone on this one but the rule of giving fly anglers distance and respect. That should apply to all anglers. I've had a few arguments with fly anglers this year( I fly fish myself) as to spinning in rivers and such were it is legal

floattuber_lee

i don't think any nets should be left in lakes! no need for netting.

I only fly fish and think all fishermen should be given distance and respect. i would say if it was on a trout or salmon water if someone was worming and intending to sit at one particular spot all day i would feel a bit miffed if i couldnt run my flies through the run/pool. As most fly fishermen adopt the cast and move approach.

Bizzum

Royal and Grand canals should by way of a specific C&R bye-law be catch and release only.

dodderangler

Bizzum wrote: »

Royal and Grand canals should by way of a specific C&R bye-law be catch and release only.

To all fish?
A lot of lads go to canals to catch easy roach for pike bait.

Bizzum

dodderangler wrote: »

To all fish?
A lot of lads go to canals to catch easy roach for pike bait.

Precisely why a bye law is required. It's my opinion the the canals cannot sustain this type of fishing.

madred006

Would like to see c&r introduced during August and September on rivers for a few years .

floattuber_lee

loving the foresight here, trying to address problems before they arise! some of these should really forwarded to the fisheries board!

Macy0161

dodderangler wrote: »

To all fish?
A lot of lads go to canals to catch easy roach for pike bait.

Yes - for some people catching a few easy roach is their sport. Those people shouldn't suffer just so other anglers can save a few quid.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

dodderangler wrote: »

To all fish?
A lot of lads go to canals to catch easy roach for pike bait.

I catch my own roach for pike bait, but I would never take them from a canal. the canals have been hammered over the last few years.

househero

Can we get a ban on a couple of lads in a car watching out for the authority while a couple more of them drive up the river bank trawling a net (actually saw this happening) I told them where to get off, but I don't think they understood, or just ignored me anyway.

hairoil11

a ban on fishing the top 10% of rivers where fish have gathered to spawn!! Probably wouldnt work for all rivers though

floattuber_lee

it could be worked if you said from september onwards no fishing in recognised spawning areas.

rpmcmurphy

househero wrote: »

Can we get a ban on a couple of lads in a car watching out for the authority while a couple more of them drive up the river bank trawling a net (actually saw this happening) I told them where to get off, but I don't think they understood, or just ignored me anyway.

S 291 OF 1959 FCA makes it an offence to given warning to persons engaged in unlawful fishing and is occasionally used in fisheries prosecutions.

Zzippy

floattuber_lee wrote: »

Don't write posts assuming everyone is an idiot, i can assure you i am educated to a level to know and understand all trials and tribulations facing a fish from the start of its life. My point is a fish of that size will be genetically strong. Just to give you an idea of what i mean, if a fish is hatched with a deformed tail it probably won't have the power to feed or return to the river it hatched from... bad genes... a big strong healthy fish has good genetic make up. In fact you could go as far as to say every fish returning has good genes, the fact the fish has returned 5 times bigger than fish of the same cohort suggest it has excellent genes. In any case a female fish of those sizes would have many times more eggs than a smaller fish, increasing the chances of survival of her genes on to the next years fish. A male of those sizes will be more aggressive and stronger so he would have a greater chance of his genes passing on to the next generation.

(i did ask for no grief in my original post)

I didn't read any grief or assumptions you were an idiot, he merely disagreed with your post and provided reasons. This is a place for debate and discussion, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are giving you grief.
On the topic, I agree with him too - hatcheries for years selected the bigger fish in an attempt to produce big fish, but geneticists have advised that this is not a recommended policy - smaller fish have an important role to play too, and a good spread of genes is more important than preserving specific genes. Also, many of the smaller fish have the potential to grow to those big sizes, genetics plays a very minor role in how those fish got to be big.

I would love to see catch-and-kill competitions banned, lower bag limits on some lakes, ferox trout protected (C&R only, and for the reasons of conservation of the species, not size), a permanent ban on commercial fishing for bass, larger size limit for bass, and greater penalties for anyone caught illegally fishing.

floattuber_lee

Zayden Jealous Pluto wrote: »

I don't want to drag your thread off topic but a fish surviving to maturity has an awful lot more factors in play than genetics I can assure you. It has "something " to do with it certainly but genetics as a sole argument for releasing larger fish is a weak angle.

the fact that he says 'fish surviving to maturity has an awful lot more factors in play than genetics I can assure you'

like I need to be assured? like I said i'm not an idiot I don't need to be assured about fish survival rates.

Anybody can disagree with me I have no problem with the fact he disagrees with me. Just don't do it and arrogant condescending manner. He may as well have said 'Don't you be worrying about genetics I know far more than you do so just let me assure you of it'

floattuber_lee

Zzippy wrote: »

On the topic, I agree with him too - hatcheries for years selected the bigger fish in an attempt to produce big fish, but geneticists have advised that this is not a recommended policy - smaller fish have an important role to play too, and a good spread of genes is more important than preserving specific genes.

Also, many of the smaller fish have the potential to grow to those big sizes, genetics plays a very minor role in how those fish got to be big.

I would love to see catch-and-kill competitions banned, lower bag limits on some lakes, ferox trout protected (C&R only, and for the reasons of conservation of the species, not size), a permanent ban on commercial fishing for bass, larger size limit for bass, and greater penalties for anyone caught illegally fishing.

I agree with you on needing a more diverse gene pool, i was not suggesting that all smaller fish are killed. I was only suggesting that bigger fish be returned as how many 20, 30lb salmon will one river have returning to it?

The highlighted section above you say many smaller fish have the POTENTIAL to grow to those sizes. All fish have the potential to grow big, but they don't. Those big fish obviously have a healthy strong genetic make up to allow that growth. Even if it is something tiny in their genetic make up that makes them a better predator at sea so they can get more food to grow bigger.

SeaFields

Mod

Please stay on the topic being discussed. If you have a problem with which a fellow posters speaks to you, PM them, unless its a breach of charter, then use the report button. Thanks.

Zzippy

floattuber_lee wrote: »

I agree with you on needing a more diverse gene pool, i was not suggesting that all smaller fish are killed. I was only suggesting that bigger fish be returned as how many 20, 30lb salmon will one river have returning to it?

The highlighted section above you say many smaller fish have the POTENTIAL to grow to those sizes. All fish have the potential to grow big, but they don't. Those big fish obviously have a healthy strong genetic make up to allow that growth. Even if it is something tiny in their genetic make up that makes them a better predator at sea so they can get more food to grow bigger.

I think you're focussing on big fish too much - its understandable as anglers we all want to catch big fish, but genetically they are probably nothing remarkable. Those smaller fish don't get as big for a multitude of reasons - predation, competition, parasites etc. I think luck plays a much bigger part than genetics in determining just how big any particular fish will grow.
To be honest, its far more important to see bigger fish (especially hen fish) protected because they will produce more eggs and therefore make a much bigger contribution to continuation of the stock, than for any aesthetic or trophy reasons. This is especially true in a small stock, where each fish counts, and a big fish surviving to spawn can make a much bigger impact.

floattuber_lee

Zzippy wrote: »

I think you're focussing on big fish too much - its understandable as anglers we all want to catch big fish, but genetically they are probably nothing remarkable. Those smaller fish don't get as big for a multitude of reasons - predation, competition, parasites etc. I think luck plays a much bigger part than genetics in determining just how big any particular fish will grow.
To be honest, its far more important to see bigger fish (especially hen fish) protected because they will produce more eggs and therefore make a much bigger contribution to continuation of the stock, than for any aesthetic or trophy reasons. This is especially true in a small stock, where each fish counts, and a big fish surviving to spawn can make a much bigger impact.

I did say in one of the earlier posts about bigger fish having more eggs and a higher chance of spawning. the highlighted part above, i just want to clarify i'm not suggesting releasing bigger fish so i have the chance to catch one and put it on my wall or brag to my friends about it. i dont even weigh the fish i catch they get a quick pic and released.

No doubt luck plays a huge part in what happens to the fish through out its life, but do you see my point in saying if it is genetically strong the fish will be fit and healthy therefore more able to avoid predators or catch prey to grow to the big sizes.

Going off point a bit here but for arguments sake say a salmon is hatched and it is immune to the effects of sea lice (imaginary world here) that is one tiny part of its genetic make up but would increase its survival rate hugely especially if there is a salmon farm near by! That is all i mean by its genetics something small that is making a big difference. We may not know what it is, like you say it might have nothing to do with genes at all, but until we know beyond reasonable doubt surely it wouldnt do any harm for the law to state they must be returned.

househero

rpmcmurphy wrote: »

S 291 OF 1959 FCA makes it an offence to given warning to persons engaged in unlawful fishing and is occasionally used in fisheries prosecutions.

Its an offense to tell someone to not break the law???

Couldn't find a copy of the 1959 fca

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

househero wrote: »

Its an offense to tell someone to not break the law???

Couldn't find a copy of the 1959 fca

It refers to giving warning, as in keeping nicks, acting as a lookout, etc. Not warning somebody off.

dazza161989

I would love to see catch and release on ALL fish in my local river (feale) for at least the next 3 years, if not 5!!!!

danbrosnan

dazza161989 wrote: »

I would love to see catch and release on ALL fish in my local river (feale) for at least the next 3 years, if not 5!!!!

Try and ban the commercial netting first, why c&r when the the legal nets granted by the fishery board will catch the fish the following year...

Genetics are not, I agree with the op..... It would be nice for big fish to be put back and me being very honest would I put back a twenty pound salmon?

I don't think so because I have so much work put in along the bank....

The most simplest ethos I would like to see put into the fishery board is ten times more fishery officers, people who are not afraid to convict people and do not have them working on there own doorstep....

Patrol the coastlines on a daily basis at five o clock in the morning and patrol the big rivers everyday because the amount of untagging is frightening...

Everyday it would be done and have bigger fines for people breaking the law, there should be a quota put on fishery officers like they do with the traffic core...

The gards have to catch a certain amount of people

dazza161989

danbrosnan wrote: »

Try and ban the commercial netting first, why c&r when the the legal nets granted by the fishery board will catch the fish the following year...

Genetics are not, I agree with the op..... It would be nice for big fish to be put back and me being very honest would I put back a twenty pound salmon?

I don't think so because I have so much work put in along the bank....

The most simplest ethos I would like to see put into the fishery board is ten times more fishery officers, people who are not afraid to convict people and do not have them working on there own doorstep....

Patrol the coastlines on a daily basis at five o clock in the morning and patrol the big rivers everyday because the amount of untagging is frightening...

Everyday it would be done and have bigger fines for people breaking the law, there should be a quota put on fishery officers like they do with the traffic core...

The gards have to catch a certain amount of people

They will never ban commercial netting......ever, far too beneficial to them unfortunately..

As for myself i have never, nor will i ever take a salmon over 15lbs for the table, nor have i or will i ever take a hen fish. But thats just my opinion, im not saying what other people do is wrong.