Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

National Angling Development Plan

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    R.Dunne wrote: »
    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.

    This is 100% wrong. Local anglers and IFI staff would be even more horrified by a heavy pollution catastrophe, but trying to equate the two and to assign theoretical actions/words/opinions to people demonstrates that you have as much of a bias against certain interests as Flysfisher allegedly has against pike.


  • Options
    #63
    R.Dunne
    Registered Users Posts: 36 ✭R.Dunne


    Zzippy wrote: »
    This is 100% wrong. Local anglers and IFI staff would be even more horrified by a heavy pollution catastrophe, but trying to equate the two and to assign theoretical actions/words/opinions to people demonstrates that you have as much of a bias against certain interests as Flysfisher allegedly has against pike.

    Yes I am biased, against IFI as an organisation. I don't like admitting that but It's the truth. I believe they are bad for angling in this country. I am sure there are perfectly legit members, it's just a pity there are not more of them. I am positive though for the future, times are changing, even here in Ireland. Time and tide wait for no man and I believe in the next 10-15 years Ireland will be up to par with the likes of the uk, Netherlands etc when it comes to conservation and welfare.

    I'm not making out that IFI has treated pike introduction as a more devastating incident than pollution. I am inferring that, Reports suggested that the owenriff was 'one of the most important tributaries' because it was a pike related incident, and was intended to build contempt against pike.


  • Options
    #64
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    R.Dunne wrote: »
    Yes I am biased, against IFI as an organisation. I don't like admitting that but It's the truth. I believe they are bad for angling in this country. I am sure there are perfectly legit members, it's just a pity there are not more of them. I am positive though for the future, times are changing, even here in Ireland. Time and tide wait for no man and I believe in the next 10-15 years Ireland will be up to par with the likes of the uk, Netherlands etc when it comes to conservation and welfare.

    I'm not making out that IFI has treated pike introduction as a more devastating incident than pollution. I am inferring that, Reports suggested that the owenriff was 'one of the most important tributaries' because it was a pike related incident, and was intended to build contempt against pike.

    That's grand, thanks, nice to have the bias out in the open.

    As for your second paragraph, the prase "one of the most important tributaries" would most certainly have been used in a press release if there was a serious pollution incident. Stating it was intended to build contempt against pike is merely your opinion, and is 100% wrong.


  • Options
    #65
    jkchambers
    Registered Users Posts: 380 ✭✭jkchambers


    Zzippy wrote: »
    This is 100% wrong. Local anglers and IFI staff would be even more horrified by a heavy pollution catastrophe, but trying to equate the two and to assign theoretical actions/words/opinions to people demonstrates that you have as much of a bias against certain interests as Flysfisher allegedly has against pike.

    A well known pike and coarse angler told me a few years ago that he fished the Owenriff in the mid 1990`s and had a 16 pound pike.


  • Options
    #66
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    jkchambers wrote: »
    A well known pike and coarse angler told me a few years ago that he fished the Owenriff in the mid 1990`s and had a 16 pound pike.

    Funny how he was the only one catching pike there. Also funny how no large pike were found when the electro-fishing was carried out, indicating a relatively recent introduction. If they were there in the 90s there would surely be a few bigger fish about, but no, they were pretty much all 6lbs or less. If they were there in the 90s local anglers would certainly have known about it too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    R.Dunne
    Registered Users Posts: 36 ✭R.Dunne


    Zzippy wrote: »
    That's grand, thanks, nice to have the bias out in the open.

    As for your second paragraph, the prase "one of the most important tributaries" would most certainly have been used in a press release if there was a serious pollution incident. Stating it was intended to build contempt against pike is merely your opinion, and is 100% wrong.

    No use flogging a dead horse.
    A disagreement it is then.

    You've mentioned a couple of times now Zzippy that you are 'not in agreement with the pike culling' ?. I'm delighted to hear that. Why are you against it?Out of genuine interest would you mind elaborating? Where do you believe that pike culling should or should not be practiced? I'm particularly interested in your opinion on the culling of pike on the western loughs Corrib, Cullin, Conn, Mask, Gill etc.


  • Options
    #68
    famoussheamus
    Registered Users Posts: 73 ✭✭famoussheamus


    Owenriff facts
    Decline of rod caught salmonoids
    Decline of pearl mussel (migrating fish part of the life cycle)
    Owenriff Stock management bye catch = 0, ( no trout, salmon, eels, perch, etc)


    Pollution which has the potential to produce a fish kill is normally a once of event but salmonoid species have a coping mechanism to cope with this by replenishment with the adult stock. On the other hand, predation is ongoing dissemination of stocks which impacts all stages of life cycle.


  • Options
    #69
    Flysfisher
    Registered Users Posts: 249 ✭✭Flysfisher


    R.Dunne wrote: »
    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.

    Sorry but your assumptions about me are incorrect.


  • Options
    #70
    Flysfisher
    Registered Users Posts: 249 ✭✭Flysfisher


    jkchambers wrote: »
    A well known pike and coarse angler told me a few years ago that he fished the Owenriff in the mid 1990`s and had a 16 pound pike.

    Maybe he lied.


  • Options
    #71
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    R.Dunne wrote: »
    No use flogging a dead horse.
    A disagreement it is then.

    You've mentioned a couple of times now Zzippy that you are 'not in agreement with the pike culling' ?. I'm delighted to hear that. Why are you against it?Out of genuine interest would you mind elaborating? Where do you believe that pike culling should or should not be practiced? I'm particularly interested in your opinion on the culling of pike on the western loughs Corrib, Cullin, Conn, Mask, Gill etc.

    It's just my personal opinion. I happen to be unconvinced that culling is effective as a strategy to maximise trout numbers on large fisheries where pike are an established species, the science isn't clear enough. I don't regard pike as native to all catchments however, and deliberate introductions are an act of vandalism, so I fully agree with intensive removal operations in catchments where pike have been recently introduced. BTW, I wasn't aware pike were removed on Gill, is that true?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    R.Dunne wrote: »
    No use flogging a dead horse.
    A disagreement it is then.

    You've mentioned a couple of times now Zzippy that you are 'not in agreement with the pike culling' ?. I'm delighted to hear that. Why are you against it?Out of genuine interest would you mind elaborating? Where do you believe that pike culling should or should not be practiced? I'm particularly interested in your opinion on the culling of pike on the western loughs Corrib, Cullin, Conn, Mask, Gill etc.

    It's just my personal opinion. I happen to be unconvinced that culling is effective as a strategy to maximise trout numbers on large fisheries where pike are an established species, the science isn't clear enough. I don't regard pike as native to all catchments however, and deliberate introductions are an act of vandalism, so I fully agree with intensive removal operations in catchments where pike have been recently introduced. BTW, I wasn't aware pike were removed on Gill, is that true?


  • Options
    #73
    R.Dunne
    Registered Users Posts: 36 ✭R.Dunne


    Zzippy wrote: »
    It's just my personal opinion. I happen to be unconvinced that culling is effective as a strategy to maximise trout numbers on large fisheries where pike are an established species, the science isn't clear enough. I don't regard pike as native to all catchments however, and deliberate introductions are an act of vandalism, so I fully agree with intensive removal operations in catchments where pike have been recently introduced. BTW, I wasn't aware pike were removed on Gill, is that true?

    I don't know enough about gill to state that as a fact TBO, but I threw it in there as I heard nets had been taken off it, and left off it. I just think it's a particularly interesting one.


  • Options
    #74
    R.Dunne
    Registered Users Posts: 36 ✭R.Dunne


    R.Dunne wrote: »
    I don't know enough about gill to state that as a fact TBO, but I threw it in there as I heard nets had been taken off it, and left off it. I just think it's a particularly interesting one.

    I will look into it more


  • Options
    #75
    bencarvosso
    Registered Users Posts: 51 ✭✭bencarvosso


    nets gone off lough gill around ten years now, still on arrow though

    trout fishing according to who you speak to has improved slightly...


  • Options
    #76
    Flysfisher
    Registered Users Posts: 249 ✭✭Flysfisher


    bencarvosso wrote: »
    nets gone off lough gill around ten years now, still on arrow though

    trout fishing according to who you speak to has improved slightly...

    There are many who refuse to accept the fact that after netting trout fishing improves. I suppose they just don't experience it to be fair to them.


  • Options
    #77
    gary29428
    Registered Users Posts: 464 ✭✭gary29428


    Well the nets are down on Corrib again, i wonder is it possible to get accurate figures of the amount of pike they take out and kill.


  • Options
    #78
    jkchambers
    Registered Users Posts: 380 ✭✭jkchambers


    gary29428 wrote: »
    Well the nets are down on Corrib again, i wonder is it possible to get accurate figures of the amount of pike they take out and kill.

    Nets are usually down on Corrib in Feb/March. Are they down at the moment ?


  • Options
    #79
    gary29428
    Registered Users Posts: 464 ✭✭gary29428


    Yeah, later then the last few years.


Advertisement