National Angling Development Plan

jkchambers

It appears that a sub committee of Inland Fisheries Ireland has started preparing a National Angling Development Plan. By coincidence all the National Angling Federations are also hoping to be able to prepare a National Angling Development Plan. The IFI Sub Committee want to meet a delegation from IFPAC next Thursday to ask us how we see pike angling being developed. I would think that we could tell them in one sentence - Leave our pike alone and stop gill netting them. They will be meeting other federations in due course.
We will prepare a submission. Earlier this week there was a meeting of the National Inland Fisheries Forum and they also discussed development. They were discussing development under the following headings which we will also use.
Developing Domestic and Tourism Angling
Role of Angling Federations
Angling Competitions
Angling Providers- Guides, Ghillies, providers of all types
Promotion of the Irish Angling Product
Youth Angling
If anyone has any reasonable ideas please email them to me at ifpacsnaps@gmail.com
After we meet them we may post our submission

R.Dunne

Throw the book at them John!
Have them acknowledge that pike are native and protected as stated on their own website.
Request they lift all killer nets from wild Irish lakes and loughs and vehemently stress that this includes the pike culled western loughs Corrib, conn, mask, cullin etc.
Request an immediate ban on pike killing comps held by trout clubs on these waters. Demand the maximum possible notice of any further netting surveys and related meetings.

Stress to them that times have changed! That the pike angling fraternity has grown rapidly in recent years and at least matches the game angling fraternity in number and deserves an equal say.

For a start

jkchambers

R.Dunne wrote: »

Throw the book at them John!
Have them acknowledge that pike are native and protected as stated on their own website.
Request they lift all killer nets from wild Irish lakes and loughs and vehemently stress that this includes the pike culled western loughs Corrib, conn, mask, cullin etc.
Request an immediate ban on pike killing comps held by trout clubs on these waters. Demand the maximum possible notice of any further netting surveys and related meetings.

Stress to them that times have changed! That the pike angling fraternity has grown rapidly in recent years and at least matches the game angling fraternity in number and deserves an equal say.

For a start

Well, the recent TDI have it at 67,000 trout anglers and 62,000 pike anglers. When it comes to average annual expenditure by domestic anglers they find pike anglers spend 2,427 and trout anglers 1,655. This would mean that overall pike anglers spend 150,474,000 per year while trout anglers spend 110,885,000. Crude enough calculations but they are based on the latest information available.I would imaging that this would be a complete turnaround on what the position would have been say 10 or 15 years ago

R.Dunne

John does this represent national expenditure only, or does it include revenue from tourism?

jkchambers

R.Dunne wrote: »

John does this represent national expenditure only, or does it include revenue from tourism?

Republic only
http://www.fisheriesireland.ie/media/tdistudyonrecreationalangling.pdf

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Just form my experience on the ground, there seems to be many more tourists visiting Ireland for pike, coarse and sea fishing than for trout or salmon. I'd imagine revenues from these are many times those for trout/salmon and this all counts as exports in our balance of trade. No evidence but as I said just from being on the ground involved in all types of angling for over 55 years.

Zzippy

jkchambers wrote: »

Well, the recent TDI have it at 67,000 trout anglers and 62,000 pike anglers. When it comes to average annual expenditure by domestic anglers they find pike anglers spend 2,427 and trout anglers 1,655. This would mean that overall pike anglers spend 150,474,000 per year while trout anglers spend 110,885,000. Crude enough calculations but they are based on the latest information available.I would imaging that this would be a complete turnaround on what the position would have been say 10 or 15 years ago

Those are national figures. In the west, trout angling would far outweigh pike in importance and economic contribution. Pike anglers would do well to remember this, and also remember the big urban-rural divide in Ireland - rural people resent people from Dublin telling them they know better. Trying to impose a certain viewpoint only deepens any divide between trout and pike anglers and leads to further entrenchment of views on both sides.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I don't get this insistence on an urban rural split, or a Dublin versus the rest, attitude. I'm rural and not from Dublin so please don't assume a partular opinion is restricted to a particular geographic demographic.

R.Dunne

That's only while nets are down, the western lakes are potentially the finest pike fisheries in the whole world!, tourism would flood there during the winter on foot of the nets being lifted. Why mention Dublin? It's only one of 32 counties that has pike anglers. Trout might be more important in the west, but pike are at least as important if not more so in the rest of the country and that has been ignored until now.
It's not like we are pushing for a trout cull, we just want the pike culling to stop.
In which case pike and trout anglers both benefit.
Lift the nets! Stop culling!
Everybody wins!

Zzippy

Kyson Loose Zeppelin wrote: »

I don't get this insistence on an urban rural split, or a Dublin versus the rest, attitude. I'm rural and not from Dublin so please don't assume a partular opinion is restricted to a particular geographic demographic.

I didn't ascribe that to you, it is my observation from living in rural Ireland over the last 18 years or so, having lived in Dublin for many years before that. It is apparent in many facets of life, social, sporting, interaction with government, cultural, economic. People do not like being told what to do by outsiders, and in rural Ireland, as often as not, that is Dublin.

Zzippy

R.Dunne wrote: »

That's only while nets are down, the western lakes are potentially the finest pike fisheries in the whole world!, tourism would flood there during the winter on foot of the nets being lifted. Why mention Dublin? It's only one of 32 counties that has pike anglers. Trout might be more important in the west, but pike are at least as important if not more so in the rest of the country and that has been ignored until now.
It's not like we are pushing for a trout cull, we just want the pike culling to stop.
In which case pike and trout anglers both benefit.
Lift the nets! Stop culling!
Everybody wins!

I happen to agree with you on culling. Just pointing out the general view in this area. I hear it all the time. But I disagree on surveys, gillnets are a tool for surveying fish stocks, that is all, surveys kill a tiny number of fish from the overall population and are not culls.

jkchambers

Zzippy wrote: »

Those are national figures. In the west, trout angling would far outweigh pike in importance and economic contribution. Pike anglers would do well to remember this, and also remember the big urban-rural divide in Ireland - rural people resent people from Dublin telling them they know better. Trying to impose a certain viewpoint only deepens any divide between trout and pike anglers and leads to further entrenchment of views on both sides.

Last year IFPAC had 71 paid up affiliated clubs. Of these only 3 were Dublin based so our affiliated clubs are all over the country though I will admit that we are thin on the ground in the West.In the mid 90s when a huge amount of gill netting was done under the TAM programme consultants TDI did research on anglers fishing Corrib. As far as I remember 20% of anglers were pikers and pike anglers spent a good bit more than trout anglers. If gill netting stopped I am sure that the numbers of pike anglers visiting the Western lakes would at least double.

Fisherman

jkchambers wrote: »

Last year IFPAC had 71 paid up affiliated clubs. Of these only 3 were Dublin based so our affiliated clubs are all over the country though I will admit that we are thin on the ground in the West.In the mid 90s when a huge amount of gill netting was done under the TAM programme consultants TDI did research on anglers fishing Corrib. As far as I remember 20% of anglers were pikers and pike anglers spent a good bit more than trout anglers. If gill netting stopped I am sure that the numbers of pike anglers visiting the Western lakes would at least double.

From my experience, after talking to quite a few British pikers, the numbers of British pikers would explode and they spend shedloads more cash in the area than we Irish pikers would.

R.Dunne

Fisherman wrote: »

From my experience, after talking to quite a few British pikers, the numbers of British pikers would explode and they spend shedloads more cash in the area than we Irish pikers would.

Not to mention dutch, italians, germans, danes, fins.... they are all boycotting!!, these guys save up small fortunes for their annual trips! I mean rediculous sums of money, particularly the dutch and germans(pike friendly germans:rolleyes:), and love nothing more than splashing it on their angling adventures, sometimes twice or more per year!....

Fisherman

R.Dunne wrote: »

Not to mention dutch, italians, germans, danes, fins.... they are all boycotting!!, these guys save up small fortunes for their annual trips! I mean rediculous sums of money, particularly the dutch and germans(pike friendly germans:rolleyes:), and love nothing more than splashing it on their angling adventures, sometimes twice or more per year!....

Too true, R.Dunne, although, personally, I have only been speaking to the English, Scottish and Welsh guys on the forums and I don't have first hand info from our European friends, but you are correct.

Flysfisher

Zzippy wrote: »

Those are national figures. In the west, trout angling would far outweigh pike in importance and economic contribution. Pike anglers would do well to remember this, and also remember the big urban-rural divide in Ireland - rural people resent people from Dublin telling them they know better. Trying to impose a certain viewpoint only deepens any divide between trout and pike anglers and leads to further entrenchment of views on both sides.

Very silly comment. What big urban rural divide? What big nasty people from Dublin telling the lads in the west what to do? Who are these people? What are their names? Enda Kenny and Michael Ring is it?

Zzippy

Flysfisher wrote: »

Very silly comment. What big urban rural divide? What big nasty people from Dublin telling the lads in the west what to do? Who are these people? What are their names? Enda Kenny and Michael Ring is it?

There are none so blind as refuse to see. If you refuse to accept the idea that some people think differently to you that's your problem, I'm not going to waste my time trying to persuade you.

Flysfisher

jkchambers wrote: »

Last year IFPAC had 71 paid up affiliated clubs. Of these only 3 were Dublin based so our affiliated clubs are all over the country though I will admit that we are thin on the ground in the West.In the mid 90s when a huge amount of gill netting was done under the TAM programme consultants TDI did research on anglers fishing Corrib. As far as I remember 20% of anglers were pikers and pike anglers spent a good bit more than trout anglers. If gill netting stopped I am sure that the numbers of pike anglers visiting the Western lakes would at least double.

What?

Do Pike anglers want EVERY lake in the country? We only have a handfull of good trout lakes left do you want them all developed as pike fisheries.
Christ of almighty is there not enough pike fisheries in Ireland already. The list of pike fisheries is endless as it is.

Flysfisher

Zzippy wrote: »

There are none so blind as refuse to see. If you refuse to accept the idea that some people think differently to you that's your problem, I'm not going to waste my time trying to persuade you.

No not at all I do not refuse to accept people see things differently.

I would just love to know who these people are and what are their backgrounds?
I suspect many of them have rural backgrounds.

Its got nothing to do with where people come from or live. If people think it does then its those who have the real problem.

jkchambers

Flysfisher wrote: »

What?

Do Pike anglers want EVERY lake in the country? We only have a handfull of good trout lakes left do you want them all developed as pike fisheries.
Christ of almighty is there not enough pike fisheries in Ireland already. The list of pike fisheries is endless as it is.

We have no problem with Western Lakes being developed as wild brown trout fisheries. However we want to be able to fish for all species present without them being removed. They are public waters.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

What is wrong with allowing fisheries be natural? You can have pike and trout, roach and perch etc without being mutually exclusive. A lake is all the richer for having the full range of species nature intends for it. Coarse fishing venues are still top quality with the pike populations left without interference and trout lakes can be the same.

Flysfisher

jkchambers wrote: »

We have no problem with Western Lakes being developed as wild brown trout fisheries. However we want to be able to fish for all species present without them being removed. They are public waters.

Yes they are public waters. But the amount of wild trout lakes are very few in comparison to pike fisheries. It's not like there are not alternatives to the western trout lakes.
Look at all the lakes in Cavan over 360 I believe most if not all contain pike yet Cavan only has a few trout lakes. That's just one county. Leitrim is similar, Monaghan has plenty too not to mention rivers Shannon, barrow inny and suck. Don't forget the canals.

The problem is there are too many pike fisheries already and having the 'game fishing' lakes as primarily pike fisheries would not attract more pike anglers to Ireland, there is more than enough capacity.

Pike anglers should look after all their own fisheries and stop whinging about the removal of pike from trout and salmon lakes.

Flysfisher

Kyson Loose Zeppelin wrote: »

What is wrong with allowing fisheries be natural? You can have pike and trout, roach and perch etc without being mutually exclusive. A lake is all the richer for having the full range of species nature intends for it. Coarse fishing venues are still top quality with the pike populations left without interference and trout lakes can be the same.

Some species have been introduced not by nature but by man, that's what's wrong.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Flysfisher wrote: »

Some species have been introduced not by nature but by man, that's what's wrong.

I never said to leave non native species! Pike and trout are both native so let them be in any lakes that hold both.

jkchambers

Flysfisher wrote: »

Yes they are public waters. But the amount of wild trout lakes are very few in comparison to pike fisheries. It's not like there are not alternatives to the western trout lakes.
Look at all the lakes in Cavan over 360 I believe most if not all contain pike yet Cavan only has a few trout lakes. That's just one county. Leitrim is similar, Monaghan has plenty too not to mention rivers Shannon, barrow inny and suck. Don't forget the canals.

The problem is there are too many pike fisheries already and having the 'game fishing' lakes as primarily pike fisheries would not attract more pike anglers to Ireland, there is more than enough capacity.

Pike anglers should look after all their own fisheries and stop whinging about the removal of pike from trout and salmon lakes.

All Lakes should be marketed and fished for the species they hold. I have no problem with the lakes that hold wild brown trout having money spent on them on projects such as stream enhancement. That said should wild brown trout anglers be more conservation minded. A Corrib bag limit of 4 trout over 13 ins is too much in a lake where trout numbers have declined in recent years. Perhaps anglers should be keeping trout under 13 ins and returning trout over that size as they are the ones that will be spawning ? Just a thought

R.Dunne

Flysfisher wrote: »

Yes they are public waters. But the amount of wild trout lakes are very few in comparison to pike fisheries. It's not like there are not alternatives to the western trout lakes.
Look at all the lakes in Cavan over 360 I believe most if not all contain pike yet Cavan only has a few trout lakes. That's just one county. Leitrim is similar, Monaghan has plenty too not to mention rivers Shannon, barrow inny and suck. Don't forget the canals.

The problem is there are too many pike fisheries already and having the 'game fishing' lakes as primarily pike fisheries would not attract more pike anglers to Ireland, there is more than enough capacity.

Pike anglers should look after all their own fisheries and stop whinging about the removal of pike from trout and salmon lakes.

Flyfisher it's already evident that removing and culling pike from the western lakes has had a NEGATIVE impact on trout stocks. Have a read through the wfd survey results

R.Dunne

Sorry the rest of that post should have read

on mask and cullin in 2012 and Corrib in 2011. So why not leave them alone for a few years and see what happens?

Zzippy

Kyson Loose Zeppelin wrote: »

I never said to leave non native species! Pike and trout are both native so let them be in any lakes that hold both.

Devil's advocate: Pike are native to Ireland, but not to every lake in Ireland. If someone introduces pike to a lake, would you rather see them left there, cos they're "native", or removed?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Zzippy wrote: »

Devil's advocate: Pike are native to Ireland, but not to every lake in Ireland. If someone introduces pike to a lake, would you rather see them left there, cos they're "native", or removed?

As they are native (without quotes ) I personally would be duty bound to leave them.

Zzippy

Kyson Loose Zeppelin wrote: »

As they are native (without quotes ) I personally would be duty bound to leave them.

OK. So that gives free rein to unscrupulous "anglers" (and I very definitely mean the quotes) to introduce pike anywhere they see fit, no matter that pike have never been native in that lake? And feck the consequences, once they're in they're native?

R.Dunne

Zzippy wrote: »

OK. So that gives free rein to unscrupulous "anglers" (and I very definitely mean the quotes) to introduce pike anywhere they see fit, no matter that pike have never been native in that lake? And feck the consequences, once they're in they're native?

Are you attempting to claim that pike could be native to Ireland, yet not find their way naturally into a lough of over 44'000 acres???

Caribs

I can think of a specific example where Pike haven't been native to a particular stretch of water historically but through man's intervention are now plentiful. The Owenriff system above the waterfall in Oughterard has had Pike introduced and according to the IFI are having a negative impact on Trout and Salmon stocks looking to spawn. They've been actively involved in netting Pike on that system and in that circumstance I fully support them.

Lough Corrib itself as far as I know has held Pike for hundreds of years and the size of the lake along with the breath of different species of fish in the lake seems to mean they can co-exist as they have done for generations.

I did hear anecdotally that the bag limit on Pike is deterring many European anglers from coming to Ireland. Whereas before they could take Pike caught in the past the limits introduced (as a result of over-fishing in smaller lakes/systems as I understand it) mean that the anglers are taking their money elsewhere. I know that might open up another can of worms in terms of catch and kill versus catch and release

R.Dunne

Caribs wrote: »

I can think of a specific example where Pike haven't been native to a particular stretch of water historically but through man's intervention are now plentiful. The Owenriff system above the waterfall in Oughterard has had Pike introduced and according to the IFI are having a negative impact on Trout and Salmon stocks looking to spawn. They've been actively involved in netting Pike on that system and in that circumstance I fully support them.

Lough Corrib itself as far as I know has held Pike for hundreds of years and the size of the lake along with the breath of different species of fish in the lake seems to mean they can co-exist as they have done for generations.

I did hear anecdotally that the bag limit on Pike is deterring many European anglers from coming to Ireland. Whereas before they could take Pike caught in the past the limits introduced (as a result of over-fishing in smaller lakes/systems as I understand it) mean that the anglers are taking their money elsewhere. I know that might open up another can of worms in terms of catch and kill versus catch and release

And thank god those mass poachers, criminals and vandals are taking themselves elsewhere!.... They used to come over here ,not spend a penny other than rent cruisers for weeks on end , eat what they catch and fill freezers to capacity with trout , salmon, roach, bream, pike , tench , ducks ,swans and whatever else they could pluck skin and gut! To pay for their plane ticket home and more. That rabble cannot be compared to the beneficial tourist , that comes here to sample Irish hospitality, culture, field sports and angling.

Zzippy

R.Dunne wrote: »

Are you attempting to claim that pike could be native to Ireland, yet not find their way naturally into a lough of over 44'000 acres???

Not at all. I was referring to small lake systems like the one Caribs referred to, where pike were deliberately introduced in recent years - that is environmental vandalism. But many pike anglers are so zealous about anti-removal that they think they should be left there.

R.Dunne wrote: »

And thank god those mass poachers, criminals and vandals are taking themselves elsewhere!.... They used to come over here ,not spend a penny other than rent cruisers for weeks on end , eat what they catch and fill freezers to capacity with trout , salmon, roach, bream, pike , tench , ducks ,swans and whatever else they could pluck skin and gut! To pay for their plane ticket home and more. That rabble cannot be compared to the beneficial tourist , that comes here to sample Irish hospitality, culture, field sports and angling.

Swans, really?

He has a very valid point. I know business owners whose main business was Swiss and German anglers who have stopped coming because they couldn't take even one pike big enough for the table - these are not the campervan/freezer guys you're talking about, these are guys who fly in, rent a cottage for a week and like to cook their catch - they can't exactly take it all home with them. The pike byelaw was badly needed, but it is too strict to allow tourist anglers even one pike big enough for dinner.

If the pike angling lobby wants to point to tourism angling as a reason not to cull pike, they have to realise that a lot of those tourists won't come while we have a 50cm limit. There are extremes on both sides of the argument, from the "all pike are vermin" extreme to the "only scumbags eat pike" extreme". If pike are to be treated the same as other native fish, why should they have greater protection in terms of taking a fish for the pot?

R.Dunne

Zzippy wrote: »

Not at all. I was referring to small lake systems like the one Caribs referred to, where pike were deliberately introduced in recent years - that is environmental vandalism. But many pike anglers are so zealous about anti-removal that they think they should be left there.



Swans, really?

He has a very valid point. I know business owners whose main business was Swiss and German anglers who have stopped coming because they couldn't take even one pike big enough for the table - these are not the campervan/freezer guys you're talking about, these are guys who fly in, rent a cottage for a week and like to cook their catch - they can't exactly take it all home with them. The pike byelaw was badly needed, but it is too strict to allow tourist anglers even one pike big enough for dinner.

If the pike angling lobby wants to point to tourism angling as a reason not to cull pike, they have to realise that a lot of those tourists won't come while we have a 50cm limit. There are extremes on both sides of the argument, from the "all pike are vermin" extreme to the "only scumbags eat pike" extreme". If pike are to be treated the same as other native fish, why should they have greater protection in terms of taking a fish for the pot?

Fair enough on the matter of deliberate introduction by man, that is wrong full stop. However that's what the law is there to prevent, and as ineffective as it may be it's all we have to rely on as a preventative measure.

I don't agree on the point of size of pike to be taken. 50cm is loads , how many 50cm pike does any angler need to eat in a day? If a 50cm pike per day is not enough then in my opinion that's just greed.
I don't think pike deserve more protection than any other species Zzippy, I believe trout bag limits should be reduced and I believe the size of trout removed should be limited too. Same for salmon , it disgusts me that EVERY SINGLE salmon I see in a pic has a disgusting tag in its mouth, what a shame. Fair enough take a salmon for the pan , but again why take everything?

That however is only my opinion and I'm not going there.

Zzippy

R.Dunne wrote: »

Fair enough on the matter of deliberate introduction by man, that is wrong full stop. However that's what the law is there to prevent, and as ineffective as it may be it's all we have to rely on as a preventative measure.

I don't agree on the point of size of pike to be taken. 50cm is loads , how many 50cm pike does any angler need to eat in a day? If a 50cm pike per day is not enough then in my opinion that's just greed.
I don't think pike deserve more protection than any other species Zzippy, I believe trout bag limits should be reduced and I believe the size of trout removed should be limited too. Same for salmon , it disgusts me that EVERY SINGLE salmon I see in a pic has a disgusting tag in its mouth, what a shame. Fair enough take a salmon for the pan , but again why take everything?


That however is only my opinion and I'm not going there.

A 50cm pike on average weighs less than 2lbs and has less than 1lb of edible fillet. That will not provide a meal for 3 or 4 hungry anglers. I think the size limit is too restrictive, and was brought in to appease the pike angling C&R lobby who thought no pike should be killed.
I too agree that trout bag limits should be reduced, and I think there should be a slot limit, so that only trout between 13 and 16 inches can be taken, for example, but for many anglers the primary reason for going fishing is to catch a fish for dinner, and I will defend his right to do so provided there are enough fish to supply that need. I practise C&R 99% of the time, but I like to take a fish myself now and then, be it a trout, salmon, flounder, mackerel etc. A slot limit for pike of 50-65cm would be a more sensible solution, while retaining the 1 fish limit.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I certainly agree that trout bag limits need amending on quantity and size.
As for pike in lakes. There is no evidence that pike, as a native species, did not inhabit every water system at some point in the past. Their absence from smaller waters suggests extinctions due to human interference in the past. Hence any reintroduction is quite legitimate. But that's for another day perhaps - indeed it has I think been discussed here before.

Zzippy

Kyson Loose Zeppelin wrote: »

I certainly agree that trout bag limits need amending on quantity and size.
As for pike in lakes. There is no evidence that pike, as a native species, did not inhabit every water system at some point in the past. Their absence from smaller waters suggests extinctions due to human interference in the past. Hence any reintroduction is quite legitimate. But that's for another day perhaps - indeed it has I think been discussed here before.

That is absolute and utter rubbish. There is zero evidence either way, so you cannot say that the absence of evidence suggests they were present, that is completely ridiculous. The lack of any evidence for something happening now means that something was likely to have happened, does it?

As for your second point, if a State agency with large resources and modern methods cannot render pike extinct in a large fishery, and the same can be said for apparently large-scale poaching in recent years in much smaller fisheries, how on earth can you infer that the absence of pike in smaller waters suggests they were rendered extinct by human interference in the past? Were humans in the past much more efficient at catching pike??? Another completely ridiculous statement.

And then to use two ridiculous statements to justify illegal introductions as "reintroductions", well not only is that ridiculous but it's also extremely irresponsible, exonerating environmental vandals breaking the law. Sorry, you're either trolling or you're completely misguided and lack a basic understanding of logic and science. I strongly suspect the former.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Firstly, there seems no point in discussing anything if you insist on referring to every hypothesis as ridiculous, no matter how well researched those hypotheses may be and how many years have been spent looking in to them. Secondly, although I don't see the point in doing it, placing a native species like pike in any state owned water system is not illegal - unless you can produce the legislation that proves this ridiculous as well.
I'll leave you to it.

floattuber_lee

i was on a different coarse fishing forum for about 1 hour where i read about guys trying to introduce chub and barbel to the shannon. the way were talking about it was disgusting! saying things like 'the trout and salmon anglers would never allow it. some even saying they wouldnt cause any harm as they have different life cycles' ignorance really must be bliss! stuff like this stresses me out so much that people can be so negligent! we are all keepers of the water ways in a small way once its gone and wrecked its gone and wrecked! a lot of Ireland's rivers got shafted in the drainage schemes, some have recovered some haven't, the sea trout stocks have collapsed, the number of invasive species is on the rise when will it stop and when will a government grow a set and start to really protect this amazing country! some of the best fishing in europe and its barely recognised as a sport.

Zzippy

Kyson Loose Zeppelin wrote: »

Firstly, there seems no point in discussing anything if you insist on referring to every hypothesis as ridiculous, no matter how well researched those hypotheses may be and how many years have been spent looking in to them. Secondly, although I don't see the point in doing it, placing a native species like pike in any state owned water system is not illegal - unless you can produce the legislation that proves this ridiculous as well.
I'll leave you to it.

OK. I have no problem discussing a hypothesis where it is indeed well researched, and/or there is some evidence for it. Your hypothesis referred to the complete lack of evidence for something as somehow being evidence for that thing being true. How exactly is that well researched, or if it is, where is the evidence?

Secondly, it is illegal to move live fish between waters without authorisation, regardless of their native status or not. The Fish Health Regulations enforced by the Marine Institute require fish health authorisation and movement orders for transferring fish into a fishery. I've dealt with the paperwork for such movements myself.

Regardless of the legality, are you seriously trying to justify stocking pike into a fishery where they are not present? What about the risk of transferring invasive species or diseases along with those pike?

R.Dunne

Zzippy wrote: »

A 50cm pike on average weighs less than 2lbs and has less than 1lb of edible fillet. That will not provide a meal for 3 or 4 hungry anglers. I think the size limit is too restrictive, and was brought in to appease the pike angling C&R lobby who thought no pike should be killed.
I too agree that trout bag limits should be reduced, and I think there should be a slot limit, so that only trout between 13 and 16 inches can be taken, for example, but for many anglers the primary reason for going fishing is to catch a fish for dinner, and I will defend his right to do so provided there are enough fish to supply that need. I practise C&R 99% of the time, but I like to take a fish myself now and then, be it a trout, salmon, flounder, mackerel etc. A slot limit for pike of 50-65cm would be a more sensible solution, while retaining the 1 fish limit.

Again it comes down to good intentions being abused. In an ideal world/country, maybe I would be in favour of giving a little more leeway on the pike size limit but after the behaviour I have witnessed over the last 10 years, particularly that of foreign nationals I wouldn't in a million years DREAM of increasing the size limit!. A size or bag limit is implemented for the preservation of stocks but unfortunately certain people see this as a chink in the armour and take full advantage.
As for 1lb of fillet to feed four hungry anglers? This is unlikely unless they hit a bad spell of angling in which case you just except it as reality and boil a few extra spuds , I mean we are talking about angling after all. I am more concerned about fourteen hungry anglers, taking fourteen such fish in the morning ,same in the afternoon and again in the evening and so on so fourth. This continues for weeks then months , then local anglers pack it in and with no watchful eyes, hey presto! size limit goes out the window and before you know it the 1st of a chain of small lakes are littered with campfires , beer cans , carcasses etc. I could continue this story but I'm sure you know the drill ?. As for the genuine fn's and tourists that mean no harm well I'm sorry for the inconvenience but it's too much to risk IMO, once bitten twice shy.

Flysfisher

Kyson Loose Zeppelin wrote: »

I certainly agree that trout bag limits need amending on quantity and size.
As for pike in lakes. There is no evidence that pike, as a native species, did not inhabit every water system at some point in the past. Their absence from smaller waters suggests extinctions due to human interference in the past. Hence any reintroduction is quite legitimate. But that's for another day perhaps - indeed it has I think been discussed here before.

Your way off the mark there, pike did not inhabit every water system.
The placing of pike into the owenriff system was a disgusting act of vandalism. And their 're-introduction' is most certainly not legitimate.
Pike have been introduced to many systems where they have done damage to native species.

R.Dunne

Flysfisher wrote: »

Your way off the mark there, pike did not inhabit every water system.
The placing of pike into the owenriff system was a disgusting act of vandalism. And their 're-introduction' is most certainly not legitimate.
Pike have been introduced to many systems where they have done damage to native species.

What other 'systems' have pike been introduced to in Ireland?

R.Dunne

jkchambers wrote: »

It appears that a sub committee of Inland Fisheries Ireland has started preparing a National Angling Development Plan. By coincidence all the National Angling Federations are also hoping to be able to prepare a National Angling Development Plan. The IFI Sub Committee want to meet a delegation from IFPAC next Thursday to ask us how we see pike angling being developed. I would think that we could tell them in one sentence - Leave our pike alone and stop gill netting them. They will be meeting other federations in due course.
We will prepare a submission. Earlier this week there was a meeting of the National Inland Fisheries Forum and they also discussed development. They were discussing development under the following headings which we will also use.
Developing Domestic and Tourism Angling
Role of Angling Federations
Angling Competitions
Angling Providers- Guides, Ghillies, providers of all types
Promotion of the Irish Angling Product
Youth Angling
If anyone has any reasonable ideas please email them to me at ifpacsnaps@gmail.com
After we meet them we may post our submission

How did the meeting go today john?

Zzippy

R.Dunne wrote: »

What other 'systems' have pike been introduced to in Ireland?

South Donegal has a lot of small lakes that were previously excellent trout fisheries. Over the last 15 years or so most of them have had pike introduced. Local rumour is that a German angler who lives in the area has done this, but of course there is no evidence to prove this. Those same lakes are not worth casting a fly in anymore, unless it's a pike fly.

R.Dunne

Zzippy wrote: »

South Donegal has a lot of small lakes that were previously excellent trout fisheries. Over the last 15 years or so most of them have had pike introduced. Local rumour is that a German angler who lives in the area has done this, but of course there is no evidence to prove this. Those same lakes are not worth casting a fly in anymore, unless it's a pike fly.

Zzippy wrote: »

South Donegal has a lot of small lakes that were previously excellent trout fisheries. Over the last 15 years or so most of them have had pike introduced. Local rumour is that a German angler who lives in the area has done this, but of course there is no evidence to prove this. Those same lakes are not worth casting a fly in anymore, unless it's a pike fly.

Look we can discuss rumours all day. Those are the opinions of a biased group of people that will conjure up anything to paint pike in a bad light. So how can I give their word any credit? I could have mentioned 'rumours' of anglers landing double figure pike in the owenriff system back in the 90's but I didn't. If what happened on the owenriff system was deliberate vandalism then that would be unacceptable. However if the tables were turned would the fisheries board clamber hand over fist to the rescue of our pike? I think not.

Pike were being slaughtered wholesale for as far back as I can remember and the fisheries board never lifted a finger to stop it , and it certainly never made the RTE news either. As long as this biased attitude continues, I will choose to believe that all these 'illegal pike stockings' are just more conjured up rumours.
If IFI put the same effort and recourses towards reducing cormorant numbers alone! It would be a big step forward

Zzippy

R.Dunne wrote: »

Look we can discuss rumours all day. Those are the opinions of a biased group of people that will conjure up anything to paint pike in a bad light. So how can I give their word any credit? I could have mentioned 'rumours' of anglers landing double figure pike in the owenriff system back in the 90's but I didn't. If what happened on the owenriff system was deliberate vandalism then that would be unacceptable. However if the tables were turned would the fisheries board clamber hand over fist to the rescue of our pike? I think not.

Pike were being slaughtered wholesale for as far back as I can remember and the fisheries board never lifted a finger to stop it , and it certainly never made the RTE news either. As long as this biased attitude continues, I will choose to believe that all these 'illegal pike stockings' are just more conjured up rumours.
If IFI put the same effort and recourses towards reducing cormorant numbers alone! It would be a big step forward

The only rumour is about who introduced the pike in those lakes. Without proof, it really doesn't matter who did it. The relevant point is that pike were introduced - you asked for examples of other systems where pike were introduced and I provided an example. These are small lakes that provided great trout fishing for a few local anglers, little known and rarely visited by outsiders. Now those trout anglers have no trout fishing on their doorstep. There is no rumour about what happened, only about who did it.

With regard to the Owenriff, if someone can provide proof of double figure pike being caught there in the 90s I'd like to see it. This was formerly one of the most important spawning tributaries of Lough Corrib for trout and salmon, now it is a shadow of its former self. Again, rumour is irrelevant - the fact is that pike were not found in this subcatchment, now they are.

You are choosing to believe that illegal pike stocking has not happened, in spite of the evidence, because you don't like what has been done to pike in the past? Well there's a logical and responsible attitude! Basically, "you killed pike, so I don't care if people spread them around. Hah!"

Re cormorants, the National Parks and Wildlife Service do not allow IFI to control cormorant numbers. They are protected under the Wildlife Act, and there's not a thing IFI can do about it. IFI can also do nothing about seals, dolphins, the price of petrol or the state of the economy. But don't let that stop you having a go...

R.Dunne

You show me proof that pike were introduced into the owenriff and I will do my best to find proof that they were being caught in that system back in the 90's.

'the fact is that pike were not found in this subcatchment, now they are.'

Maybe IFI would have found them sooner, had they been looking for them sooner.

'This was formerly one of the most important spawning tributaries of Lough Corrib for trout and salmon'

does 5.77 % origins of trout count as one of the most important spawning tributaries of lough corrib?

''Well there's a logical and responsible attitude! Basically, "you killed pike, so I don't care if people spread them around. Hah!"

Dont put words in my mouth, I clearly stated above that 'If what happened on the owenriff system was deliberate vandalism then that would be unacceptable', and I hold that opinion for any other system where there is 'proof' or at least substantial evidence that there has been an illegal introduction of any species including pike.

My choosing to believe that, 'illegal pike stocking has not happened, in spite of the evidence', is no less logical or irresponsible than the anti pike squad CHOOSING to concoct evidence whenever they deem it necessary to bring their nets down on pike.

Speaking of which, now that pike are finally recognised as being native I wonder what strings IFI will pull next to see to it that the nets stay down on the great western lakes, corrib, mask etc. I will be watching with great interest.

Zzippy

R.Dunne wrote: »

You show me proof that pike were introduced into the owenriff and I will do my best to find proof that they were being caught in that system back in the 90's.

'the fact is that pike were not found in this subcatchment, now they are.'

Maybe IFI would have found them sooner, had they been looking for them sooner.

'This was formerly one of the most important spawning tributaries of Lough Corrib for trout and salmon'

does 5.77 % origins of trout count as one of the most important spawning tributaries of lough corrib?

''Well there's a logical and responsible attitude! Basically, "you killed pike, so I don't care if people spread them around. Hah!"

Dont put words in my mouth, I clearly stated above that 'If what happened on the owenriff system was deliberate vandalism then that would be unacceptable', and I hold that opinion for any other system where there is 'proof' or at least substantial evidence that there has been an illegal introduction of any species including pike.

My choosing to believe that, 'illegal pike stocking has not happened, in spite of the evidence', is no less logical or irresponsible than the anti pike squad CHOOSING to concoct evidence whenever they deem it necessary to bring their nets down on pike.

Speaking of which, now that pike are finally recognised as being native I wonder what strings IFI will pull next to see to it that the nets stay down on the great western lakes, corrib, mask etc. I will be watching with great interest.

Yeah, it's big bad IFI's fault for not looking sooner :rolleyes: These aren't exactly little hidden lakes that are never fished, they are right beside a main road and are fished regularly. Anglers spin these lakes from the shore every year for trout, many of those anglers are local Oughterard people and live and socialise with fishery officers. Pike were never caught until 2009, when they were reported to local staff. Do you think if they had been there before that a) people spinning would never have caught them and b) IFI staff would not have heard about it? How could IFI have looked better? Would you like to see surveys on every small lake on an annual basis?

Yes, 5.77% of the Corrib trout population is an important tributary, or to put it another way, 100% of the Owenriff genetic strain of trout, which have been proven to be different to the other strains of trout found in Corrib. Is your point that 5% is negligible, and to ignore the genetic diversity? If a salmon river contributed just 5% of the salmon population in Ireland, would it not be important?

Finally, please outline what evidence has been concocted to justify pike netting? (By the way, I'm not in agreement with the culling, but I'd like to know what evidence has been concocted)

jkchambers

Zzippy wrote: »

Yeah, it's big bad IFI's fault for not looking sooner :rolleyes: These aren't exactly little hidden lakes that are never fished, they are right beside a main road and are fished regularly. Anglers spin these lakes from the shore every year for trout, many of those anglers are local Oughterard people and live and socialise with fishery officers. Pike were never caught until 2009, when they were reported to local staff. Do you think if they had been there before that a) people spinning would never have caught them and b) IFI staff would not have heard about it? How could IFI have looked better? Would you like to see surveys on every small lake on an annual basis?

Yes, 5.77% of the Corrib trout population is an important tributary, or to put it another way, 100% of the Owenriff genetic strain of trout, which have been proven to be different to the other strains of trout found in Corrib. Is your point that 5% is negligible, and to ignore the genetic diversity? If a salmon river contributed just 5% of the salmon population in Ireland, would it not be important?

Finally, please outline what evidence has been concocted to justify pike netting? (By the way, I'm not in agreement with the culling, but I'd like to know what evidence has been concocted)

Good to hear that you are not in agreement with pike culling. IFI have said for decades that pike feed preferentially on trout. A lot of this goes back a to a report by Ed Toner in the early 1950`s when he wrote that 1170 pike weighing 5.5 tons was estimated to have eaten 46 tons of trout in a year. If they were eating that many trout I would imaging that trout would be extinct by now. We await Debbie Pedreschi`s second report which will be on pikes diet. This will be a report based on science and modern methods can show what species of fish the pike has been feeding on over a number of months and what percentage of the pike`s diet each species made up.