Lough Ree Stock Assessment

Fisherman

Zzippy wrote: »

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...

Haha, can't you think of any more adjectives to describe the surveys, Zzippy, you can disregard commonsense if you like, since it doesn't help your argument, but it's relevant nonetheless. Because something has been done a certain way for a long time doesn't make it right or, in this case, yield reliable unequivocal results.

Zzippy wrote:

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?

If pike were the only fish killed and maimed in nets during these 'surveys' then yes it would only be pike that I would be concerned about but as it isn't only pike I need not type the obvious. The humane argument is a large part of my objection to the use of gillnets in these surveys but it's not my only objection, laying and retrieving them is both costly and time-consuming for what I consider to be the collection of flawed results. All fish caught at sea using nets, in my opinion, should be used for food and don't get me started on discards.

jkchambers

allenup wrote: »

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!

I dont think so. I dont know whether you know or not but I was a member of the Eastern Regional Fisheries Board for around 20 years and Chairman for most of that time. I was also a member of the Central Fisheries Board for around 5 years so I wouldnt think that I would have been anti establishment all the time !!

bizidea

have the state always been right in everything they do or did are we all just a flock of sheep and supposed do what they tell us and agree with everything they do without ever quetioning it allenup

allenup

fair enough JK..but you are now! did not know you were previously a fishery board person! maybe you have a bee in your bonnet that you are not on the IFI Board?!

Zzippy

allenup wrote: »

fair enough JK..but you are now! did not know you were previously a fishery board person! maybe you have a bee in your bonnet that you are not on the IFI Board?!

In fairness to jk he has always represented the interests of pike anglers to the best of his ability, and not been afraid to criticise or praise when he sees fit. He's also one of the very few prepared to stick his head above the parapet and engage in debate, even if it's with people who are very difficult to reason with. I think its very unfair to suggest any ulterior motive on his part

Zzippy

bizidea wrote: »

have the state always been right in everything they do or did are we all just a flock of sheep and supposed do what they tell us and agree with everything they do without ever quetioning it allenup

No, you're right, people have a right to question. But only if they can engage in rational debate, and if they think something is wrong, to point out exactly why, and propose alternatives. As a trained scientist myself, who has seen surveys carried out first hand and read the reports, I'm happy to trust the scientists involvd in the current survey. But there seem to be a lot of people who "are entitled to an opinion". Sorry, but when it comes to science, if you're not a trained person who can debate the science, and present a good argument why something is wrong, then express your opinion all you like, but you* won't be listened to. Look across the pond - the theory of evolution is well proven by now, but Christian zealots are "entitled to their opinion" of how man was created, and its actually taught in schools. That's what happens when everyone is "entitled to their opinion" and expects to have it respected.

*Not directed at "you" personally

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I would rather we stuck to the merits, or otherwise, of the survey than personalise this with assumptions. JK, while i do not always agreee with his stance, always shows an overriding concern for the sport of angling.
I welcome any suggestions he may have, based on his long experience on all sides of this particular fence. The timing seems wrong to me. As for the nets, I confess little knowledge of the pros or cons of one type over another - hence my interest in reading a balanced and focused debate on it here and elsewhere.

R.Dunne

Zzippy wrote: »

No, you're right, people have a right to question. But only if they can engage in rational debate, and if they think something is wrong, to point out exactly why, and propose alternatives. As a trained scientist myself, who has seen surveys carried out first hand and read the reports, I'm happy to trust the scientists involvd in the current survey. But there seem to be a lot of people who "are entitled to an opinion". Sorry, but when it comes to science, if you're not a trained person who can debate the science, and present a good argument why something is wrong, then express your opinion all you like, but you* won't be listened to. Look across the pond - the theory of evolution is well proven by now, but Christian zealots are "entitled to their opinion" of how man was created, and its actually taught in schools. That's what happens when everyone is "entitled to their opinion" and expects to have it respected.

*Not directed at "you" personally

I think you're points are fair Zzippy and seem unbiased, and being a scientist im sure you know what you are talking about. However there is a big fat word you mentioned in the above post TRUST. At the end of the day I DO NOT TRUST Inland fisheries ireland. IMO there is way to much 'nudge nudge , wink wink,' going on in IFI and they have 'hypothetically speaking' spat on pike anglers interests in the past and have done so again over the whole lough ree survey. There was no respect shown whatsoever, and nothing has changed since.

Science is great when used as a tool to do good, and in fairness it usually is intended that way, but then the results get passed onto people in some form of power and it ends up getting abused. In the right hands I am fully behind fishery and wildlife surveys but until I am convinced we are no longer under the control of a biased fisheries board, I am staunchly opposed!.

Zzippy

R.Dunne wrote: »

I think you're points are fair Zzippy and seem unbiased, and being a scientist im sure you know what you are talking about. However there is a big fat word you mentioned in the above post TRUST. At the end of the day I DO NOT TRUST Inland fisheries ireland. IMO there is way to much 'nudge nudge , wink wink,' going on in IFI and they have 'hypothetically speaking' spat on pike anglers interests in the past and have done so again over the whole lough ree survey. There was no respect shown whatsoever, and nothing has changed since.

Science is great when used as a tool to do good, and in fairness it usually is intended that way, but then the results get passed onto people in some form of power and it ends up getting abused. In the right hands I am fully behind fishery and wildlife surveys but until I am convinced we are no longer under the control of a biased fisheries board, I am staunchly opposed!.

That's fair enough, and I respect your opinion. Just ask yourself this question: if IFI really wanted to cull pike under the guise of a survey, do you not think they would have designed the survey so that all, or most, of the nets would have been placed in inshore areas to target pike? Because that is what has been stated by opponents - that the survey was just a cull in disguise.

allenup

all the relevant lough ree angling clubs were informed R.Dunne..and some of those clubs are pike angling clubs!!!!:pac:

R.Dunne

Zzippy wrote: »

That's fair enough, and I respect your opinion. Just ask yourself this question: if IFI really wanted to cull pike under the guise of a survey, do you not think they would have designed the survey so that all, or most, of the nets would have been placed in inshore areas to target pike? Because that is what has been stated by opponents - that the survey was just a cull in disguise.

Yes Im sure they would,
TBO In hindsight I dont believe this particular instance is intended as a cull, I stress 'in hindsight' but it has taken quiet some time to become satisfied of that. I still maintain that IFI were reckless, as a number of nets, although randomly selected, ended up in shallow bays. These should have been repositioned. I intimatley Know one particular location, where large hens are very likely to have come into contact with nets.... Placing Nets at that time of year Is like a big game of battle ship, loads of water with no pike, but get lucky with even one position and bullseye lots and lots of big dead hens.

If they need to make comparisons to surveys previously conducted at this time of year, then I suggest they start from scratch and re-write the charts.

Despite the fact I no longer believe this netting was intended as a cull, however distastefully it may have been conducted! I do not excuse IFI for administrating this survey at a time of year that was originally selected to maximise the chances of capturing hens at spawning time.

R.Dunne

allenup wrote: »

all the relevant lough ree angling clubs were informed R.Dunne..and some of those clubs are pike angling clubs!!!!:pac:

Im aware of this Allenup, but what notice was given? 24hours? or were local clubs given more time than outsiders?. I would genuinely love to have been at this meeting. Again IFI were asking for trouble being so discreet!

jkchambers

R.Dunne wrote: »

Im aware of this Allenup, but what notice was given? 24hours? or were local clubs given more time than outsiders?. I would genuinely love to have been at this meeting. Again IFI were asking for trouble being so discreet!

Meeting was held on Thurs 20th March. I believe local clubs were told the previous Friday. I dont know whether all were notified

allenup

yes..i would imagine local clubs were given a week r 2 notice!! why do the whole country need to know about everything?! if you wer clued in to lough ree angling you would have heard anyway!

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

allenup wrote: »

yes..i would imagine local clubs were given a week r 2 notice!! why do the whole country need to know about everything?! if you wer clued in to lough ree angling you would have heard anyway!

You seem to miss the points that L Ree belngs to all of us in the country, that the fish there are the country's fish and that their treatment is of concern to many, regardless of where they live.

allenup

so EVERY Club in the country should be notified?!!! I dont think so...and I have never seen the IFPAC having a competition on Lough Ree,never mind fish it (before they start whinging) ! The local clubs were notified as far as i know..in my book that is good enough..the argument is lost among the moaners anyhow!the survey was a huge success,so i heard from a chairman of an athlone club last night in a local pub!!!and from what i seen of it, i would probably agree..looking forward to the results.

jkchambers

allenup wrote: »

so EVERY Club in the country should be notified?!!! I dont think so...and I have never seen the IFPAC having a competition on Lough Ree,never mind fish it (before they start whinging) ! The local clubs were notified as far as i know..in my book that is good enough..the argument is lost among the moaners anyhow!the survey was a huge success,so i heard from a chairman of an athlone club last night in a local pub!!!and from what i seen of it, i would probably agree..looking forward to the results.

IFPAC held 2 competitions in the Portrunny Bay area over the years. It must be 5 or 6 years since were held the last one. One or two farmers told some competitors that they didnt want anglers crossing their land. They had no right to do this as the ESB own the fishing rights of the whole Shannon system. Several IFPAC affiliated clubs operate on and just above Lough Ree. The local clubs were notified on the Friday just before the meeting on Thurs 20th Feb. IFI said that they had got EU funding for the project. If that was the case they must have planned it at least a year ago as EU funding is very slow to get. At the meeting the local clubs were anxious about trout genetics and which spawning streams were contributing best and worst to the trout stocks on Lough Ree. That was what all the talk was about. This was a trout survey, pure and simple. If a special trout competition was held spread all over the lake and all trout killed and given to IFI to carry out the genetics we wouldnt have had to go through this farce.

allenup

Farmers have a right to stop people walking through the land..the last thing anyone around here wants is a load of vans down from Dublin trespassing on our land.By all means use our shoreline and fish off it, but make sure you get to it along the high water mark,and not through my land.

A great example of how much people care about L.Ree is the RNLI facebook page for lough ree.. 950 likes - then you see how many people like the stop gill netting page-over 2000.. that explains a lot!a perfect example of outside influences telling us 'culchies' how we should live,in our own area!

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

As a "culchie" myself I have a huge interest in the use of gillnets but not fishing Ree too often ( perhaps 6 times in 50 years) I don't have a great interest in the RNLI there. You seem to miss the point continually that this is not just about L.Ree but about the techniques employed there. You are being too parochial in your reaction to this. The issue is the survey methods irrespective of which lake it is.
As a responsible angler, and again not from Dublin, I always ensure I have permission to access a site and park my van on the public road in a safe manner. So please keep that red herring out of the debate - that's for another thread perhaps.
The whole angling fraternity has an interest in this situation one way or the other. As said before, the fish there are not yours nor the fishing rites just for local use. This is a national issue involving the state's resources.

Zzippy

jkchambers wrote: »

IFPAC held 2 competitions in the Portrunny Bay area over the years. It must be 5 or 6 years since were held the last one. One or two farmers told some competitors that they didnt want anglers crossing their land. They had no right to do this as the ESB own the fishing rights of the whole Shannon system. Several IFPAC affiliated clubs operate on and just above Lough Ree. The local clubs were notified on the Friday just before the meeting on Thurs 20th Feb. IFI said that they had got EU funding for the project. If that was the case they must have planned it at least a year ago as EU funding is very slow to get. At the meeting the local clubs were anxious about trout genetics and which spawning streams were contributing best and worst to the trout stocks on Lough Ree. That was what all the talk was about. This was a trout survey, pure and simple. If a special trout competition was held spread all over the lake and all trout killed and given to IFI to carry out the genetics we wouldnt have had to go through this farce.

You've gone a long way from the start of this jk, from saying there was "nothing sinister" going on, to calling it a farce. You're clearly influenced by the facebook campaign against the survey, and with your AGM coming up its hardly surprising if you take a more militant stance. But all comments like the above do is serve to further deepen the divide bwteeen pike and trout anglers. Just because all the talk among local anglers at the meeting was about trout genetics does NOT mean that that's all the survey was about.

jkchambers

Zzippy wrote: »

You've gone a long way from the start of this jk, from saying there was "nothing sinister" going on, to calling it a farce. You're clearly influenced by the facebook campaign against the survey, and with your AGM coming up its hardly surprising if you take a more militant stance. But all comments like the above do is serve to further deepen the divide bwteeen pike and trout anglers. Just because all the talk among local anglers at the meeting was about trout genetics does NOT mean that that's all the survey was about.

On Lough Ree there is no divide between Trout and Pike anglers. All the clubs seem to fish for both and all pike are returned in competitions. The genetics studies on brown trout throw up really valuable information and should help in prioritising instream work. This should, in turn, result in greater trout stocks which we would all be happy with. The point I am making is that this was really a trout survey which could have been carried out in a different manner without the loss of any pike/coarse fish. IFPAC have got more anti gill netting, especially as we now know that pike are native to Ireland and not "an invasive species" as IFI/CFB have been preaching for decades.

Zzippy

jkchambers wrote: »

On Lough Ree there is no divide between Trout and Pike anglers. All the clubs seem to fish for both and all pike are returned in competitions. The genetics studies on brown trout throw up really valuable information and should help in prioritising instream work. This should, in turn, result in greater trout stocks which we would all be happy with. The point I am making is that this was really a trout survey which could have been carried out in a different manner without the loss of any pike/coarse fish. IFPAC have got more anti gill netting, especially as we now know that pike are native to Ireland and not "an invasive species" as IFI/CFB have been preaching for decades.

And the point I am making is that obtaining genetic samples of trout is a benefit of the survey, but not the primary or sole reason for the survey - if it was samples could have been obtained from angler catches, as has been done in the past. Genetic samples were obtained from angler catches on Corrib in 2009-11, which gave a lot of information. This was boosted by a lot more samples when the fish stock survey was carried out in 2012. Obtaining genetic samples was not the main aim in 2012, but it is one extra benefit of having a full survey.
You are being very disingenuous to suggest that the current survey was only about obtaining genetic samples of trout, and you know it.

jkchambers

Zzippy wrote: »

And the point I am making is that obtaining genetic samples of trout is a benefit of the survey, but not the primary or sole reason for the survey - if it was samples could have been obtained from angler catches, as has been done in the past. Genetic samples were obtained from angler catches on Corrib in 2009-11, which gave a lot of information. This was boosted by a lot more samples when the fish stock survey was carried out in 2012. Obtaining genetic samples was not the main aim in 2012, but it is one extra benefit of having a full survey.
You are being very disingenuous to suggest that the current survey was only about obtaining genetic samples of trout, and you know it.

What species other than trout is it likely to give a representative sample of ?. The only 2 it may give accurate info are roach and hybrids. With water levels high and the time of year most pike will be in around the margins and they will not obtain a representative sample by using randomly selected net sites. Bream and tench are more or less dormant during Winter and early Spring and will not be very active and wont be caught in the nets. I saw the catch reports of the first 20 nets and there wasnt a single bream or tench in them. Waterframework Direct stock assessment surveys are ALL carried out in June and July when ALL SPECIES are ACTIVE and lightly to be caught.

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
"
Dr O Grady said that they will be able to determine distribution, growth rates, diet and genetics for each species.It will be the first time that a comprehensive survey of Lough Ree will have been completed. Some EU funding is in place for the project. All pike over 70cms will be floy tagged. This is being done to try to establish the stock of adult pike in the lake. At the lough Ree angling festival in April competitors will be asked to record the number of pike they catch over 70cms with and without the tags. There is nothing sinister planned hear as all the clubs around lough Ree are pike friendly.
"

puzzling that you have no problem with the survey at this point in time,
nor did you seem to be aware of the WFD surveys that have been commonplace on waters for a good number of years now....until brought to your attention on your own message board??even at that you have no problem with mortality rates from surveys done at that time of year.

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.
Stock assessments can give very useful information on the stocks of fish in a lake, their health, year class spread etc. However, this information does come at a cost as there will be fish deaths. Dead fish are needed to provide some of the info above. Bit of a catch 22 situation.

again - no real issue hear with mortality rates from the ifpac message board more of a collateral damage scenario.

jkchambers wrote: »

On Lough Ree there is no divide between Trout and Pike anglers. All the clubs seem to fish for both and all pike are returned in competitions. The genetics studies on brown trout throw up really valuable information and should help in prioritising instream work. This should, in turn, result in greater trout stocks which we would all be happy with. The point I am making is that this was really a trout survey which could have been carried out in a different manner without the loss of any pike/coarse fish. IFPAC have got more anti gill netting, especially as we now know that pike are native to Ireland and not "an invasive species" as IFI/CFB have been preaching for decades.

have ifpac gotten more anti-gill netting since your OP or did you just not convey that at the beginning?
IFI/CFB believed that pike were non-native for decades because that was the thinking of the time - science now says otherwise and the IFI recognise that pike are native -you suggest in the above post that they have not changed there stance- this is disingenuous.

...... imo you would be much better off if you only posted your own opinions on the forum rather than try to trumpet ifpac at the expense of trout angling....2 wrongs do not make a right. playing politics across forums (boards, facebook, ifpac forum and God knows wherever else),while stepping on trout angling in order to "big" yourself up - all the while "angling" for position within IFI/ACI is only doing a dis-service to angling in general.

jkchambers

When I made the first post I was simply reporting on what happened at the meeting. I also wanted to state clearly that this was a survey report where pike and coarse fish would generally be returned UNLIKE the last major stock assessment report which was completed on Lough Corrib in Feb/Mar 2012 where ALL PIKE AND COARSE FISH WERE KILLED apart from 13 lucky pike over 90 cms which were returned. I have always been aware of the WFD surveys and I have posted links to them on several message boards for years.
IFI have admitted that they now accept that pike are native. Has that stopped them culling them on the Western Lakes and Conn and Cullin - A BIG NO. They have not changed their stance towards pike one bit.
I have no problem at all with the vast majority of trout anglers and get on pretty well with the top guys in TAFI and NARA. However, I dont like it when a couple, and it is only a couple, of clubs on Corrib apply for exemptions under Section 59 of the 2010 Act so that they can ignore the pike bye law and go out on pike killing competitions on the lake.
I have no interest in any positions in ACI or IFI. With regard to getting on to Statutory Boards - been there , done that, had enough of it.

dardevle

from here:http://www.fisheriesireland.ie/Notices/information-on-the-lough-ree-survey.html

this; There were no objections raised by any of the anglers or stakeholders present and the survey was positively welcomed by all in attendance. Attendees included lough Ree stakeholders, state agencies and representatives of the local Coarse, Pike and Trout angler interests.

you omitted this from your report.

its confusing trying to figure out what your personal views are and the statements you are making to appease ifpac members

.

R.Dunne

allenup wrote: »

all the relevant lough ree angling clubs were informed R.Dunne..and some of those clubs are pike angling clubs!!!!:pac:

So which lough ree clubs were deemed not relevant?

R.Dunne

http://www.academia.edu/1967105/Strong_correspondence_between_gillnet_catch_per_unit_effort_and_hydroacoustically_derived_fish_biomass_in_stratified_lakes

Interesting information on this , going back a few years though. Anyone have anything more up to date?

One thing stands out to me and that is the Dates chosen for the surveys were all between July-0ct

QUOTE:Fish assemblages were sampled between summer and autumn(endofJuly–mid-October,Table 1)to maximise catch efficiency of the gillnets[/U] [/B]

Why should it be different in ireland? OR have more recent surveys under EU directive across Europe been conducted at this time of year? So far I cant find any such Instances.

allenup

i never encountered such a shower in the last 45 years..i am involved in fishing,shooting and gaa, but the most annoyed people are definitely the pike people(strangers)!

jkchambers

dardevle wrote: »

from here:http://www.fisheriesireland.ie/Notices/information-on-the-lough-ree-survey.html

this; There were no objections raised by any of the anglers or stakeholders present and the survey was positively welcomed by all in attendance. Attendees included lough Ree stakeholders, state agencies and representatives of the local Coarse, Pike and Trout angler interests.

you omitted this from your report.

its confusing trying to figure out what your personal views are and the statements you are making to appease ifpac members

.

That was a statement issued by IFI themselves. I raised the issue of pike spawning at the time of the netting. I also added that they may not get a good catch of pike as they would probably be out in the flooded fields. I dont believe that any coarse angling clubs were informed or were present. The Athlone based Midland Coarse and Pike Anglers Club fish Lough Ree and their secretary knew nothing about it when I managed to contact him a couple of hours before the meeting