Lough Ree Stock Assessment

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

allenup wrote: »

well said mr dunne! i would say myself that there are as many people in favour as against the survey..most people with positive things to say dont frequent boards or post on facebook..we all know that..by the way,all clubs on lough ree are in favour of it..surely the local people who live on the shoreline and farm the land around it are entitled to more of a say than the PC D4 brigade!

To be fair, you cannot use anecdotal evidence of a silent majority in any argument on any subject. One can only judge the mood based on what is being said. Just because somebody liuve beside the lake in question right now does not give themany more say on our fishing stock or methods than anybody else. Farming the land around the lake gives nobody any more credance either. Fishing stocks, survey methods, fishery protection etc are national items. We all have an equal right to a say on any issue involving L. Ree or anywhere else in the country.
Personally I don't use face Facebook so I have not read the comments there. I have read from sites and forums elsewhere though and the opinions seem to be anti the use of gill nets.

For the record, I disagree with much, but not all, of what you have posted on this issue but I am not a "clown", I do not vote for Fine Geal, I do not live in Dublin or any urban area - just to put that particular bugbear to rest and to show the absurdity of unfounded assumptions.

SeaFields

Mod Emotions are obviously running high on this issue. There are also several new posters here. Please take time to read the charter and always remember, attack the post and not the poster, and lads, dont get personal. Consider this an informal warning to all posters on this thread just to keep the discussion on topic.

Zzippy

A couple of questions to those opposed to the use of gillnets: These are used as a survey tool in surveys across Europe, as recommended by qualified scientists. Are you opposed to their use simply because they kill a few fish? And second question, can you provide an alternative method that is as statistically reliable and provides a representative sample of fish stocks? Because remember, these surveys are a requirement under European law, they must be carried out, and part of the survey work requires obtaining fish samples and doing diet analysis, etc.

dardevle

jkchambers wrote: »

Yesterday IFI announced details of a major stock assessment to be carried our on Lough Ree. I just posted a report on last nights meeting on the IFPAC (pike fed) message board. Below is what I posted
"
There is nothing sinister planned hear as all the clubs around lough Ree are pike friendly.

."

jkchambers wrote: »

They estimate 30% will not survive. They say it is the most efficient method and has always been used. To compare surveys done in different years you need to use same nets at same locations at same time of year. While the number of fish killed may seem high it would only represent a very tiny proportion of the stocks in the lake. I am not trying to justify gill nets I would much prefer a more efficient, fish friendly method.

jkchambers wrote: »

what facebook page ?
I posted this on the IFPAC message board
" I did mention that EU funding is in place for this survey. It is being done in Feb/March when pike would normally be in around the shores spawning so it is unlikely that a good assessment of pike numbers etc will be obtained. Bream and tench will hardly be moving at all as temperatures are far too low at this time of year. They should get good info on trout, roach and hybrids (maybe they may also find a carp or a chub). If they really wanted to get a good comprehensive survey done on all species would late Summer not be a much better time ? It makes you wonder whether this is meant to be a proper comprehensive fish stock survey or just a trout survey in disguise !!

jkchambers wrote: »

I am against the use of gill nets for whatever purpose. Surveys are good and can give a lot of very useful information but there should be a more fish friendly method of capture of fish. .

Just wondering what changed your position from the OP, where you stated "nothing sinister planned here" in regards to this survey, to your attempts to turn this into a trout vs pike argument???

also judging from the time lapsed between the above quotes, it would appear that as chairman of IFPAC, your stance is a reactionary one,
in the OP there is barely a mention of gill nets, then a week later, while not trying to justify gill nets, you express a "preference" for some other un-named method of capture, then lo and behold after a couple of weeks have gone by we find you totally opposed to the use of gill nets for whatever purpose.????

as the Chairman of a National representative body who was in attendance on the night this was announced, why did you not give voice to these concerns then??

running with the hair and hunting with the hounds comes to mind.

jkchambers

dardevle wrote: »

Just wondering what changed your position from the OP, where you stated "nothing sinister planned here" in regards to this survey, to your attempts to turn this into a trout vs pike argument???

also judging from the time lapsed between the above quotes, it would appear that as chairman of IFPAC, your stance is a reactionary one,
in the OP there is barely a mention of gill nets, then a week later, while not trying to justify gill nets, you express a "preference" for some other un-named method of capture, then lo and behold after a couple of weeks have gone by we find you totally opposed to the use of gill nets for whatever purpose.????

as the Chairman of a National representative body who was in attendance on the night this was announced, why did you not give voice to these concerns then??

running with the hair and hunting with the hounds comes to mind.

IFPAC have always been against the use of gill nets for any purpose. Generally when IFPAC members hear of nets they think of "predator control measures" which usually meang gill netting and removal of all pike. When I posted about there being nothing sinister here I meant that the purpose of putting the nets down was to count pike , not kill them. At the meeting on the 20th February I did raise the issue of spawning pike. When the Facebook page Stop the gill netting of fish on Lough Ree was launched I did request them to expand it to various lakes such as Corrib, Mask etc where gill nets were down, not to count but kill all pike and coarse fish. That would be logical from a pike anglers point of view as would showing pictures of dead and dying fish in gill nets. With regard to Ree I did go there one day and fairly reported what I saw which was not a mass cull. If I was watching the IFI boats coming in from Conn or Mask I am sure I would be reporting a mass cull.

Zzippy

jkchambers wrote: »

IFPAC have always been against the use of gill nets for any purpose. Generally when IFPAC members hear of nets they think of "predator control measures" which usually meang gill netting and removal of all pike. When I posted about there being nothing sinister here I meant that the purpose of putting the nets down was to count pike , not kill them. At the meeting on the 20th February I did raise the issue of spawning pike. When the Facebook page Stop the gill netting of fish on Lough Ree was launched I did request them to expand it to various lakes such as Corrib, Mask etc where gill nets were down, not to count but kill all pike and coarse fish. That would be logical from a pike anglers point of view as would showing pictures of dead and dying fish in gill nets. With regard to Ree I did go there one day and fairly reported what I saw which was not a mass cull. If I was watching the IFI boats coming in from Conn or Mask I am sure I would be reporting a mass cull.

It's very disingenuous to equate using gillnets for a survey to what is happening on the western lakes to remove pike. That is a completely separate issue. The scientists who are carrying out the survey have no agenda with regard to pike, their job is to survey fish stocks and that is all they care about. They are also mandated by European law to carry out such surveys. Gill nets are used throughout Europe as a survey tool, as they provide a representative sample of fish stocks and age classes. If scientists throughout Europe cannot propose an alternative method that is as statistically reliable as gillnetting, why are IFPAC attacking IFI for using the method to survey fish stocks? Presumably you have some top-notch scientists on board, and can provide an alternative method that still allows Ireland to fulfil its obligations under the Water Framework Directive?

R.Dunne

Zzippy wrote: »

A couple of questions to those opposed to the use of gillnets: These are used as a survey tool in surveys across Europe, as recommended by qualified scientists. Are you opposed to their use simply because they kill a few fish? And second question, can you provide an alternative method that is as statistically reliable and provides a representative sample of fish stocks? Because remember, these surveys are a requirement under European law, they must be carried out, and part of the survey work requires obtaining fish samples and doing diet analysis, etc.

I am no scientist Zzippy but this is my view on it.
If nets must be used, then why not use seine nets in conjunction with electro fishing. Use these methods in summer months after most fish have spawned and recovered. You will get a better overall reading as fish are more widely and evenly dispersed throughout the system in the summer months.
There will be fish in the shallows at this time of year so electro fishing can also be used.
Using these methods, fish can be captured, measured, tagged and released with minimal stress or harm done.
I understand that a certain number of fish need to be dispatched for scientific analysis, but at least you can choose which species, size and gender of fish using these methods.

Zzippy

R.Dunne wrote: »

I am no scientist Zzippy but this is my view on it.
If nets must be used, then why not use seine nets in conjunction with electro fishing. Use these methods in summer months after most fish have spawned and recovered. You will get a better overall reading as fish are more widely and evenly dispersed throughout the system in the summer months.
There will be fish in the shallows at this time of year so electro fishing can also be used.
Using these methods, fish can be captured, measured, tagged and released with minimal stress or harm done.
I understand that a certain number of fish need to be dispatched for scientific analysis, but at least you can choose which species, size and gender of fish using these methods.

While seining is a viable technique for obtaining fish for samples, it is my understanding that it's not a quantitative technique and does not provide a statistically robust data sample, so it cannot be used to estimate total abundance of species.

I believe there is ongoing research to analyse the effectiveness of sonar and side scan sonar and to get data on the relationship between data from gillnet samples and that from sonar - AFAIK this is led by scientists in Northern Ireland and involves IFI. The long-term aim would be to reduce the reliance on gillnets and be able to rely more on non-invasive tachnologies, but this is a long-term effort and it will take a while before gillnets could be phased out, or reduced to minimal effort to ground-truth sonar data and obtain samples.

I think the scientists involved in the current survey would be only too happy if gillnets were no longer required, as it would drastically reduce the time and effort needed to complete the survey, but instead they have to suffer the abuse from certain quarters who haven't a clue what they are talking about. But he who shouts loudest, eh...

R.Dunne

If I may add to that.
IFI claims they are conducting this survey end February early march as this has been the time of year that gill nets have been put to use on the Irish loughs for the last 30+ years, and they need to compare their findings with previous results.
The problem is (although this particular survey is not out to eliminate pike) nearly every other netting at this time of year is designed to do exactly that! Exterminate pike!. This short window of time has been chosen by our fisheries boards over the last 30 years because it is the perfect time to maximise pike fatalities in the present, and minimise pike survival for the future. So clearly this is not a good time to be conducting a survey of this kind.

Zzippy

R.Dunne wrote: »

If I may add to that.
IFI claims they are conducting this survey end February early march as this has been the time of year that gill nets have been put to use on the Irish loughs for the last 30+ years, and they need to compare their findings with previous results.
The problem is (although this particular survey is not out to eliminate pike) nearly every other netting at this time of year is designed to do exactly that! Exterminate pike!. This short window of time has been chosen by our fisheries boards over the last 30 years because it is the perfect time to maximise pike fatalities in the present, and minimise pike survival for the future. So clearly this is not a good time to be conducting a survey of this kind.

Bear in mind that the national pike federation chairman has observed and stated online that most pike are in the shallows for spawning at the moment, and that only a small percentage of the nets involved are set in those shallows. Surely if the scientists who design the survey wanted to exterminate pike, they would have set many more nets in areas where they could maximise pike fatalities? If they really had the intentions you ascribe to them, would that not be more likely?

Or maybe they really are good scientists, looking objectively at designing a survey, and realising that while this time of year may not be ideal for some species, it is the only time of year that a sample can be obtained that is comparable with previous surveys.... Its not always a conspiracy! It so happens that previous surveys on Ree were undertaken at this time of year. On other lakes, surveys may have been carried out in June, or August, and likewise repeat surveys would be carried out in those lakes at that time of year.

I'm not going to defend the other netting that you refer to, I happen to agree with you on that, but this is not a cull and no amount of obfuscation or misrepresentation will make it so.

allenup

i wonder how well electric fishing would work in 30 metres of water! there are more fish in the lake than pike(although u wouldnt think so by all the negative comments flying around!

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

allenup wrote: »

i wonder how well electric fishing would work in 30 metres of water! there are more fish in the lake than pike(although u wouldnt think so by all the negative comments flying around!

The impact being discussed here happens to be regarding pike at the moment. I'm afraid you'll get negative comments as long as you consider opinions contrary yours as such. Concern and confusion should not be confused with negativity. Indeed some people seem very positive. Positive the timing is wrong and positive the nets are wrong.
Of course there are more fish than pike in Ree and it is questionable if netting at this time of year will record many of those species. I began neutral on this as I haven't been to Ree in decades but the more I read the more I realise this survey has a strong pro game fish bias at the expense of pike and with an indifference towards many of the coarse species. Being both a game and pike angler added to my quandary. All that said, I think the activity here on the topic is not representative of the level of interest (one way or the other) among anglers nationwide never mind the population in general.

jkchambers

Daisy Attractive Milk wrote: »

The impact being discussed here happens to be regarding pike at the moment. I'm afraid you'll get negative comments as long as you consider opinions contrary yours as such. Concern and confusion should not be confused with negativity. Indeed some people seem very positive. Positive the timing is wrong and positive the nets are wrong.
Of course there are more fish than pike in Ree and it is questionable if netting at this time of year will record many of those species. I began neutral on this as I haven't been to Ree in decades but the more I read the more I realise this survey has a strong pro game fish bias at the expense of pike and with an indifference towards many of the coarse species. Being both a game and pike angler added to my quandary. All that said, I think the activity here on the topic is not representative of the level of interest (one way or the other) among anglers nationwide never mind the population in general.

The level of interest here is tiny compared to that on Facebook. It started on the Inland Fisheries Ireland Facebook page. There were 3 threads there with 100 plus comments on the first two before they were deleted. Th Stop the gill netting of fish on Lough Ree facebook page has 2242 likes and 1162 people talking about it since the page went up 6 days ago. The No rod licence in Ireland Facebook page has 2376 likes and 234 people talking about it in 3 months so it just gives you an idea of the activity this subject has generated. The Inland Fisheries Ireland has accumulated 4156 likes and 680 people talking about it since it started on 18th February 2011
I was at the information meeting in the Hodson Bay Hotel on 20th February. Talking about fish species would have bee roughly trout 90+ %, pike 5 % with roach, hybrids, tench, bream etc being mentioned once

jkchambers

allenup wrote: »

i wonder how well electric fishing would work in 30 metres of water! there are more fish in the lake than pike(although u wouldnt think so by all the negative comments flying around!

I wonder how well gill nets would work in 30 metres of water ? Are they not around 6 ft deep and suspended from the surface ?

R.Dunne

allenup wrote: »

i wonder how well electric fishing would work in 30 metres of water! there are more fish in the lake than pike(although u wouldnt think so by all the negative comments flying around!

Electro fishing is useless in 30 metres of water that is why It should be conducted in shallow water during the summer and to be used in conjunction with seine nets as I suggested in my post.

I fish for most freshwater species allenup, Flyfishing for brown trout being my first love as I live right on the banks of the river nore so I can assure you I am not biased here. If trout or tench were suffering the same persecution as pike I would be up in arms just as vehemently!

Also it's been suggested on here a few times that these nettings are common practice under EU directives. Can someone put me right on where to find info on wherever else in Europe these gill netting surveys are being carried out at this time of year. I want to have a read but I'm not finding any info on the net?

Zzippy

jkchambers wrote: »

The level of interest here is tiny compared to that on Facebook. It started on the Inland Fisheries Ireland Facebook page. There were 3 threads there with 100 plus comments on the first two before they were deleted. Th Stop the gill netting of fish on Lough Ree facebook page has 2242 likes and 1162 people talking about it since the page went up 6 days ago. The No rod licence in Ireland Facebook page has 2376 likes and 234 people talking about it in 3 months so it just gives you an idea of the activity this subject has generated. The Inland Fisheries Ireland has accumulated 4156 likes and 680 people talking about it since it started on 18th February 2011
I was at the information meeting in the Hodson Bay Hotel on 20th February. Talking about fish species would have bee roughly trout 90+ %, pike 5 % with roach, hybrids, tench, bream etc being mentioned once

So many people, so much anger. It's a pity they can't direct their anger at some of the external threats to our sport, such as salmon farming, invasive species, water quality. I don't see any facebook pages expressing ire at, for example, the government's plan to intensify agricultural production hugely in the next few years, a development which will have a lot more impact than all the gillnets in this country. Just a symptom of how fractured the sport is here, when anglers of different disciplines see their branch of the sport as the ultimate, and won't lift a finger to support anglers who fish for other species. If we all spoke with one voice imagine the lobby group there would be, instead the government ignores us and listens to those lobby groups who have got their act together, like salmon farmers, pig farmers, etc. Sad...

jkchambers wrote: »

I wonder how well gill nets would work in 30 metres of water ? Are they not around 6 ft deep and suspended from the surface ?

Actually gillnets can be bottom set and work quite well, in fact I would expect that on the Ree survey only half the nets are surface set, and half bottom set. If they were all surface set they would only capture fish swimming in the top 2m of water, and not get a representative sample of bottom-dwelling fish. Gillnets have a bottom rope with some lead and a top rope incorporating small floats, which spreads the net open vertically. Bottom-set nets typically have a heavier lead rope, or use heavy weights to anchor it on the bottom, whereas floating nets have lighter bottom rope, and float up in the water.

allenup

R.Dunne- how would you catch freshwater herring as they live on the bottom I believe?

Zippy-great point about invasive species etc.. most comments are by people who would jist like to see fisheries abolished and become private waterkeepers,and control all! its anti-state!

And did anyone see the fella posting on facebook page.. stupid pics he puts in a caption on..very childish behaviour.. obviously has a sad life..when he spends every day doing that!

R.Dunne

allenup wrote: »

R.Dunne- how would you catch freshwater herring as they live on the bottom I believe?

Zippy-great point about invasive species etc.. most comments are by people who would jist like to see fisheries abolished and become private waterkeepers,and control all! its anti-state!

Iv no idea what you are talking about regarding fresh water herring, where is the relevance?

Give me one example of a statement that suggests the desire to abolish any fishery? To control all?

allenup

they live at the bottom of the lake..30m down..how could they be surveyed without nets?

R.Dunne

I presume you mean pollan?, good question. If gill netting is the only method that can capture fish at 30 metres then fine, put down say 10 nets or whatever number it would take to cover the small percentage of water that goes to 30metres and catch your quota of pollan, which I assume would be a small number as they are on the red list for indangered species. My only worry about placing nets at that depth would be the possibility of ferox trout fatalities, they dwell quiet deep don't they?.
Most other species won't be encountered in numbers at that depth, that I know of anyway.

Zzippy

R.Dunne wrote: »

I presume you mean pollan?, good question. If gill netting is the only method that can capture fish at 30 metres then fine, put down say 10 nets or whatever number it would take to cover the small percentage of water that goes to 30metres and catch your quota of pollan, which I assume would be a small number as they are on the red list for indangered species. My only worry about placing nets at that depth would be the possibility of ferox trout fatalities, they dwell quiet deep don't they?.
Most other species won't be encountered in numbers at that depth, that I know of anyway.

And to get a representative, statistically robust sample of fish from shallow water, you would suggest what?
Also, plenty of fish are found in deeper water, I've seen shoals of roach at 40m in Corrib, they are not always found near the surface.

Getting quite fed up now of the hysteria about gillnets. If people don't want gillnets used - at all - then either come up with a viable alternative method that is statistically robust, or say straight out that you don't want any surveys done, don't want fishery managers knowing what fish stocks we have, and don't want Ireland to fulfil our obligations under European law.

jkchambers

Zzippy wrote: »

And to get a representative, statistically robust sample of fish from shallow water, you would suggest what?
Also, plenty of fish are found in deeper water, I've seen shoals of roach at 40m in Corrib, they are not always found near the surface.

Getting quite fed up now of the hysteria about gillnets. If people don't want gillnets used - at all - then either come up with a viable alternative method that is statistically robust, or say straight out that you don't want any surveys done, don't want fishery managers knowing what fish stocks we have, and don't want Ireland to fulfil our obligations under European law.

The WFD surveys seem to use a better variety of nets and are carried out in June and July when all species would be on the move,

Zzippy

jkchambers wrote: »

The WFD surveys seem to use a better variety of nets and are carried out in June and July when all species would be on the move,

They also use primarily gillnets - the same gillnets as have just been used on L. Ree, but fyke nets too (to sample eel populations). Are you going to complain about the use of gillnets then?

Fisherman

Zzippy wrote: »

And to get a representative, statistically robust sample of fish from shallow water, you would suggest what?
Also, plenty of fish are found in deeper water, I've seen shoals of roach at 40m in Corrib, they are not always found near the surface.

Getting quite fed up now of the hysteria about gillnets. If people don't want gillnets used - at all - then either come up with a viable alternative method that is statistically robust, or say straight out that you don't want any surveys done, don't want fishery managers knowing what fish stocks we have, and don't want Ireland to fulfil our obligations under European law.

In an open lake the size of Lough Ree there is no way a 'statistically robust' method of finding out about fish stocks is possible, that much is patently obvious, so why even try? How often are these flawed 'surveys' undertaken, is it annually? What useful information is gathered? Do the 'surveys' impact negatively on the economy of the surrounding areas in that quite a few anglers avoid the area during the survey times? Are gillnets a humane way of killing fish in that a fish can be hung up for quite a while struggling before it dies a horrible death and it maybe full of spawn while doing so? Even those that are lucky enough to escape the horrific death can be maimed terribly.

Zzippy

Fisherman wrote: »

In an open lake the size of Lough Ree there is no way a 'statistically robust' method of finding out about fish stocks is possible, that much is patently obvious, so why even try? How often are these flawed 'surveys' undertaken, is it annually? What useful information is gathered? Do the 'surveys' impact negatively on the economy of the surrounding areas in that quite a few anglers avoid the area during the survey times? Are gillnets a humane way of killing fish in that a fish can be hung up for quite a while struggling before it dies a horrible death and it maybe full of spawn while doing so? Even those that are lucky enough to escape the horrific death can be maimed terribly.

Are you a fisheries scientist? Can you maybe elaborate in more specific terms why this is "patently obvious"?

I don't know how often the L. Ree survey has been carried out, but the Corrib survey in 2012 was the first major stock assessment since 1996, so it would appear not too often.

There would not be too many visiting anglers at this time of year, and without the publicity generated by anti-gillnetting activists very few would even be aware of the current survey.

Gillnets are not ideal, yes some fish do die. Other methods are not ideal also, I've seen commercial fykenets with dead otters and waterfowl trapped inside them. But it is one of the most widely used sampling methods and, going back to the first point, unless you can provide scientific evidence to the contrary, will continue to be used.
As jkchambers has pointed out, very very few of the nets were placed in inshore areas where pike are expected to be at this time of year, so the hysteria about a cull is just that, hysteria and sensationalism.

allenup

i think that whatever the fishery people do, JK will NOT be happy.. The IFPAC have a long history of attacking every single move of the state!

Fisherman

Zzippy wrote: »

Are you a fisheries scientist? Can you maybe elaborate in more specific terms why this is "patently obvious"?

No I'm not a fisheries scientist and why it is 'patently obvious' I hinted at in my opening remarks.

Zzippy wrote:

I don't know how often the L. Ree survey has been carried out, but the Corrib survey in 2012 was the first major stock assessment since 1996, so it would appear not too often.

I wasn't asking about the Corrib, I was asking about Lough Ree, maybe someone else knows the frequency of these surveys.

Zzippy wrote:

There would not be too many visiting anglers at this time of year, and without the publicity generated by anti-gillnetting activists very few would even be aware of the current survey.

Quite the contrary, Zzippy, I'm a member of quite a few fishing forums based in the UK and awareness of this subject predates any of the recent 'publicity generated by anti-gillnetting activists'. Quite a few British anglers have deserted Irish fishing in past years which has a negative effect on the local economies.

Zzippy wrote:

Gillnets are not ideal, yes some fish do die. Other methods are not ideal also, I've seen commercial fykenets with dead otters and waterfowl trapped inside them. But it is one of the most widely used sampling methods and, going back to the first point, unless you can provide scientific evidence to the contrary, will continue to be used.

Nets, period, are not ideal and I'm glad that we agree on that. Because gillnets are 'one of the most widely used sampling methods' doesn't make their use correct or desirable to many, myself included, they kill fish and because of that I am against their use. It is not up to me to find a better way it is up to those who use them to kill fish to find that way if they want to continue with the surveys.

Zzippy wrote:

As jkchambers has pointed out, very very few of the nets were placed in inshore areas where pike are expected to be at this time of year, so the hysteria about a cull is just that, hysteria and sensationalism.

To place one net in a spawning area is unfortunate, to place two there looks like carelessness.

Zzippy

Fisherman wrote: »

Nets, period, are not ideal and I'm glad that we agree on that. Because gillnets are 'one of the most widely used sampling methods' doesn't make their use correct or desirable to many, myself included, they kill fish and because of that I am against their use. It is not up to me to find a better way it is up to those who use them to kill fish to find that way if they want to continue with the surveys.

To place one net in a spawning area is unfortunate, to place two there looks like carelessness.

So its zero tolerance? If any method kills one fish it is not acceptable to be used in a survey? Ireland, like all member states, has obligations to survey its fish stocks, which includes knowing how many of each species is present, the age composition of each species, growth rates, diet, etc. For many of the parameters that are required to be known, it is necessary to obtain dead samples. Scientists cannot do diet, growth or age analysis without having fish to work on.

Regardless of your objection to netting, how do you propose we obtain those samples, and in a way that ensure that those samples are representative of the whole population? Gillnetting is about as labour-intensive a method as you can get, short of catching fish by rod. Do you think scientists wouldn't be using other methods if they were available and fulfilled those criteria?

Fisherman

Zzippy wrote: »

So its zero tolerance?

I'm afraid where netting is concerned, in my opinion, it is indeed zero tolerance, Zzippy. Netting should be reserved for the capture of food fish at sea not to pander to the nosiness of Brussels.

Zzippy wrote:

If any method kills one fish it is not acceptable to be used in a survey?

Not what I said, Zzippy, I'm aware that a survey requires a certain small number of dead fish. What I'm saying is that a survey method that kills and maims fish indiscriminately, as gillnets do, is not, nor should be, acceptable.

Zzippy wrote:

Ireland, like all member states, has obligations to survey its fish stocks, which includes knowing how many of each species is present, the age composition of each species, growth rates, diet, etc. For many of the parameters that are required to be known, it is necessary to obtain dead samples. Scientists cannot do diet, growth or age analysis without having fish to work on.

Regardless of your objection to netting, how do you propose we obtain those samples, and in a way that ensure that those samples are representative of the whole population? Gillnetting is about as labour-intensive a method as you can get, short of catching fish by rod. Do you think scientists wouldn't be using other methods if they were available and fulfilled those criteria?

Okay, Zzippy, Ireland has to do what it's told, but lets take your list one at a time: How many of each species are present in a lake? Do you seriously believe that scientists can accurately tell how many of each species are present in a given area, no matter how large and open that area is by the use of these surveys, of course they can't, they guess. If they don't manage to catch a bream in Feb/March does that mean there are no bream in Lough Ree? The age composition of each species? Easily found out by taking scale samples from willing-fishermen's catches throughout the year, which incidentally might give far more meaningful results as a greater spread of any particular species could be sampled. Growth rates? Difficult eitherway unless the same individual fish are measured. Diet? This is where a few fish will have to be humanely dispatched, as opposed to the inhumane way gillnets torture fish, and again a longer period of investigation using those willing fishermen to gather information at different locations and at different times of the year and in different weather conditions would yield more meaningful results in my opinion.

Zzippy

Fisherman wrote: »

I'm afraid where netting is concerned, in my opinion, it is indeed zero tolerance, Zzippy. Netting should be reserved for the capture of food fish at sea not to pander to the nosiness of Brussels.

Not what I said, Zzippy, I'm aware that a survey requires a certain small number of dead fish. What I'm saying is that a survey method that kills and maims fish indiscriminately, as gillnets do, is not, nor should be, acceptable.


Okay, Zzippy, Ireland has to do what it's told, but lets take your list one at a time: How many of each species are present in a lake? Do you seriously believe that scientists can accurately tell how many of each species are present in a given area, no matter how large and open that area is by the use of these surveys, of course they can't, they guess. If they don't manage to catch a bream in Feb/March does that mean there are no bream in Lough Ree? The age composition of each species? Easily found out by taking scale samples from willing-fishermen's catches throughout the year, which incidentally might give far more meaningful results as a greater spread of any particular species could be sampled. Growth rates? Difficult eitherway unless the same individual fish are measured. Diet? This is where a few fish will have to be humanely dispatched, as opposed to the inhumane way gillnets torture fish, and again a longer period of investigation using those willing fishermen to gather information at different locations and at different times of the year and in different weather conditions would yield more meaningful results in my opinion.

Look, you've already admitted you're not a fisheries scientist, so I'm going to disregard your insistence that actual fisheries scientists cannot get an accurate population analysis from a carefully designed survey using proven techniques that have been used in hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific reports over many decades. Clearly you think you know better, so there's no point arguing the toss. I'm out on that score...

You state that nets should only be used at sea to gather fish for food, and your principal objection to netting seems to be on humane treatment. So what about the gillnets at sea that kill fish indiscriminately, many of which are non-quota species and have to be discarded? Or is it only pike you're concerned about?