National Angling Development Plan

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.

jkchambers

A sub committee of IFI are currently working on preparing a National Angling Development Plan. As part of this they are starting to meet National Angling Federations. IFPAC were first up and met them yesterday. John Crudden and myself from IFPAC were present and we brought along Shane Maloney of the Mount Falcon Hotel. Shane is trying to develop pike angling tourism in the Foxford area to compliment the salmon fishing they can offer. We had an interesting meeting and highlighted the lost pike angling tourism income over the years due to adverse publicity over gill netting. In 1994 official figures show that 43,000 pike anglers visited Ireland. At that time the TAM programme for the Western Lakes hit the headlines. This was due to the fact that they planned to re-commence gill netting on Corrib and Mask on a grand scale. There was an international outcry but gill netting went ahead. Visiting pike numbers quickly collapsed to 15,000 in 1997 and never recovered. They currently stand at 12,000. All the tourism reports show that visiting pike anglers stay longer than trout anglers and spend approximately 50% more. So IFI policies are probably costing the State tens of millions of euro.
With regard to developing waters for pike, well, pike will do best on undeveloped waters so we told them we didnt want any development and just wanted IFI to leave pike alone.

Flysfisher

I really find it very hard to believe the argument that the majority of visiting pike anglers stopped coming to Ireland because there was netting in a minority of lakes.
As pointed out previously there are/were 1000s of lakes containing pike that were not officially netted by the IFI. Why didn't they just come and fish them?

Anglers will go where the fish are. Castle Leslie anyone?,Why not develop the established pike fisheries and then if this argument is true (which it clearly is not) then the 1000s of foreign visiting pike anglers who are dying to come will jump on the next available flight.

They won't come because they can't kill and eat the pike. Or fill their freezers with them. As so they shouldn't.
By the way I am not anti pike at all. I firmly believe everything has its place and if we want good pike fishing let's develop good pike fisheries, but let's not turn the last few remaining trout lakes (these lakes are already under pressure from trout anglers) into pike fisheries.

Anybody on here ever fish lough sheelin in the early 1990s if there is they will remember what the pike did there.

Flysfisher

R.Dunne wrote: »

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

Where does one start to answer that?
We would have to go back to the 1500s.
Do you really want me to list 80-90% of the lakes of Ireland! we would be here for another 500 years.

jkchambers

Flysfisher wrote: »

I really find it very hard to believe the argument that the majority of visiting pike anglers stopped coming to Ireland because there was netting in a minority of lakes.
As pointed out previously there are/were 1000s of lakes containing pike that were not officially netted by the IFI. Why didn't they just come and fish them?

Anglers will go where the fish are. Why not develop the established pike fisheries and then if this argument is true (which it clearly is not) then the 1000s of foreign visiting pike anglers who are dying to come will jump on the next available flight.

They won't come because they can't kill and eat the pike. Or fill their freezers with them. As so they shouldn't.
By the way I am not anti pike at all. I firmly believe everything has its place and if we want good pike fishing let's develop good pike fisheries, but let's not turn the last few remaining trout lakes (these lakes are already under pressure from trout anglers) into pike fisheries.

Anybody on here ever fish lough sheelin in the early 1990s if there is they will remember what the pike did there.

With regard to Sheelin in the 1990`s I think it was pollution that was the big problem.
Nobody is trying to turn the Western Lakes into pike fisheries. However, it is a fact that pike do seem to grow bigger in fisheries where there are trout. It is the chance to catch a really pig pike what brings most pikers to Ireland and Corrib, Mask, Conn and Cullin do produce big pike. Have a look at the thread on this on the facebook page. Its not long up and lots of replies
https://www.facebook.com/EsoxWorld

Flysfisher

jkchambers wrote: »

With regard to Sheelin in the 1990`s I think it was pollution that was the big problem.
Nobody is trying to turn the Western Lakes into pike fisheries. However, it is a fact that pike do seem to grow bigger in fisheries where there are trout. It is the chance to catch a really pig pike what brings most pikers to Ireland and Corrib, Mask, Conn and Cullin do produce big pike. Have a look at the thread on this on the facebook page. Its not long up and lots of replies
https://www.facebook.com/EsoxWorld

I've seen that Facebook post and everybody said yes. To be fair I wouldn't expect them to say no.
I still can't understand why lakes like muckno, lackan, castle lake, Ross lake, oughter, etc etc wouldn't produce the size and quality of pike required. I fished those lakes for pike myself and if developed they would make world class pike fisheries. I mentioned castle Leslie there was great pike there in the not too distant past yet it wasn't a trout water. People paid (a lot) to fish there, it is not a big lake but the legendary big pike brought in the visitors.

I still maintain that anglers whether coarse, game or pikers go where the fish are.

The problem on sheelin in the early 1990s wasn't solely down to pollution. There was a real pike explosion there for a few seasons. The juvenile trout population crashed immediately after the huge increase in pike numbers. Before a load of clowns come on looking for scientific evidence (as if there would be any for something like this) I witnessed it myself. I remember one day catching 26 pike spinning. There were some huge pike there back then.
Again I am not against pike or pike fishermen but I do feel that large populations of pike is not good for trout stocks. Many won't like to admit that but it's the truth.

bencarvosso

The way I see it and there is nothing scientific about this assumption.
One way or another pike have been in the trout waters either from the beginning or if you believe certain people a few hundred years.
It doesn't matter how long really. These lakes were and still are world famous trout fisheries and were at their best before man interfered through netting, pollution or over fishing...
So pike and trout stocks were at their best before man meddled, they lived side by side before man meddled. The lakes had a natural balance...
Trout stocks have not improved since netting began on all the great lakes... there are other ways to improve trout stocks as we all know, stream enhancement, protection against pollution and stricter bag limits.
Why not have the best of both worlds and let the lakes go back to their natural state in regards fish stocks and with the money saved from annual culls, put it back into helping mother nature along the way by stopping the other problems the lakes face.
As John Lennon once said, 'you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one'

R.Dunne

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)

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)

I never insinuated that 5.77% was negligible, yes of course any spawning estuary has it's part to play. My point is that when this whole situation blew up, the owenriff was made out to be one of 'the most important' tributaries! In other words, an exaggeration.

Evidence concocted to justify pike netting?

Flyfisher has just given a perfect example. Trout numbers decline on lough sheelin, blame pike. Simple

R.Dunne

Flysfisher wrote: »

I've seen that Facebook post and everybody said yes. To be fair I wouldn't expect them to say no.
I still can't understand why lakes like muckno, lackan, castle lake, Ross lake, oughter, etc etc wouldn't produce the size and quality of pike required. I fished those lakes for pike myself and if developed they would make world class pike fisheries. I mentioned castle Leslie there was great pike there in the not too distant past yet it wasn't a trout water. People paid (a lot) to fish there, it is not a big lake but the legendary big pike brought in the visitors.

I still maintain that anglers whether coarse, game or pikers go where the fish are.

The problem on sheelin in the early 1990s wasn't solely down to pollution. There was a real pike explosion there for a few seasons. The juvenile trout population crashed immediately after the huge increase in pike numbers. Before a load of clowns come on looking for scientific evidence (as if there would be any for something like this) I witnessed it myself. I remember one day catching 26 pike spinning. There were some huge pike there back then.
Again I am not against pike or pike fishermen but I do feel that large populations of pike is not good for trout stocks. Many won't like to admit that but it's the truth.

Pike explosions are generally down to the removal of larger pike. I'm not going into the details of this, the whole world knows what's happens after that.

I never fished sheelin in the 90's but used to holiday in finea in the 00's.I used to fish sheelin until the closing date and then switch to kinale. On a calm day on sheelin it was comparable to a drum roll! The sound of priests and fly boxes smacking down on the heads of lovely brownies carries a long way.

Maybe stop smacking trout on the head and you will have more trout in the lake.

I'm sure there are tourists that refuse to travel due to the limits on pike killing, but I reckon most are of the last generation mindset and probably too old to travel at this stage.

The modern anglers are tasteful anglers, pro catch and release anglers and want what's best for the fish as well as their own angling. Yes of course anglers will go where the fish are, but when it comes to Ireland they are boycotting out of principal.

Lastly, no pike angler in his / her right mind wants to see any fishery 'developed' ever. We just want pike left alone, just leave them be and everything will balance out fine.

Zzippy

R.Dunne wrote: »

I never insinuated that 5.77% was negligible, yes of course any spawning estuary has it's part to play. My point is that when this whole situation blew up, the owenriff was made out to be one of 'the most important' tributaries! In other words, an exaggeration.

Evidence concocted to justify pike netting?

Flyfisher has just given a perfect example. Trout numbers decline on lough sheelin, blame pike. Simple

Flyfisher is not IFI, you posted IFI concoct evidence. The importance of the Owenriff was not exaggerated to justify anything. If not a single trout or salmon was ever recruited to the Corrib from the Owenriff, the introduction of pike to a small trout fishery would still justify the removal operations, as to that system pike are not a native species. Nothing was concocted, and Flyfisher has posted anecdotal evidence that has not been posited by IFI, so nothing concocted by IFI there either. Any other concocted evidence you can come up with?

R.Dunne

Zzippy wrote: »

Flyfisher is not IFI, you posted IFI concoct evidence. The importance of the Owenriff was not exaggerated to justify anything. If not a single trout or salmon was ever recruited to the Corrib from the Owenriff, the introduction of pike to a small trout fishery would still justify the removal operations, as to that system pike are not a native species. Nothing was concocted, and Flyfisher has posted anecdotal evidence that has not been posited by IFI, so nothing concocted by IFI there either. Any other concocted evidence you can come up with?

No I stated that the 'anti pike squad' concocted evidence, I stated 'anti pike squad' as a generalisation. I.e any individual and/or organisation that is anti pike and from reading flyfishers posts he is IMO anti pike. You can call it whatever you like Zzippy but stating that up to 90% of Irish lakes had pike 'introduced' is blatantly anti pike. So for example trout numbers start to decline from pollution, overfishing or for whatever reason, an angler or anglers decide to put the blame on pike(concocting), fisheries board gets wind of this and nets go down.

Once again I am going to agree that If pike were introduced into the owenriff system that i agree this would be a horrendous form of vandalism. However the point I'm making here is: if there was a heavy pollution catastrophe on the owenriff system it would have been stated as exactly that 'a spawning tributary of lough Corrib has been polluted' as against 'one of lough corrib's MOST IMPORTANT spawning tributaries has been sabotaged with the illegal introduction of killer pike' this to me is a clear attempt to build contempt against pike.