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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Chub confirmed on the Inny

Comments

  • #2
    twin_beacon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,240 ✭✭✭twin_beacon


    I was in shock reading that. Not because of the Chub, but because IFI are only now, in 2020, admitting that there are still Chub in the Inny! They are far more widespread than they were in 2006, I've heard of reports of them being caught in the shannon too.

    I honestly assumed IFI were aware of the extent they has spread to. At this late stage, trying to remove them again will be harder than getting the tooth paste back in the tube, and would be more of a PR attempt to please certain people. It would be a total waste of valuable resources, that could be used else where.


  • #3
    dazza161989
    Registered Users Posts: 880 ✭✭✭dazza161989


    twin_beacon wrote: »
    I was in shock reading that. Not because of the Chub, but because IFI are only now, in 2020, admitting that there are still Chub in the Inny! They are far more widespread than they were in 2006, I've heard of reports of them being caught in the shannon too.

    I honestly assumed IFI were aware of the extent they has spread to. At this late stage, trying to remove them again will be harder than getting the tooth paste back in the tube, and would be more of a PR attempt to please certain people. It would be a total waste of valuable resources, that could be used else where.


    Wouldn't mind a bit of chub fishing 😉


  • #4
    malinheader
    Registered Users Posts: 4,859 ✭✭✭malinheader


    Lovely fish.


  • #5
    davycc
    Registered Users Posts: 9,019 ✭✭✭davycc


    Great news I love chub. delighted to hear the baxtards fishery boards feck up the kill program.

    Another species to try for!!


  • #6
    viper123
    Registered Users Posts: 519 ✭✭✭viper123


    davycc wrote: »
    Great news I love chub. delighted to hear the baxtards fishery boards feck up the kill program.

    Another species to try for!!

    Much as I hate to say it I cant disagree with you..


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    whelzer
    Registered Users Posts: 557 ✭✭✭whelzer


    davycc wrote: »
    Great news I love chub. delighted to hear the baxtards fishery boards feck up the kill program.

    Another species to try for!!

    Its so bad! My first thoughts also. Of all the ****e that gets into our rivers on a daily (hourly) basis a another type of fish to catch (on the fly!) is hardly the worst.....


  • #8
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Chubby bas***ds


  • #9
    whelzer
    Registered Users Posts: 557 ✭✭✭whelzer


    Some pals of mine caught loads of chub on the fly in 2018 over in northern England (near Leeds?) said it was great craic on bushy/deer hair/muddler type flies.


  • #10
    malinheader
    Registered Users Posts: 4,859 ✭✭✭malinheader


    I hear they are going to electrify fish the river and get rid of the chub and release the rest.
    What an absolute disgrace. Who makes the rules over this.


  • #11
    whelzer
    Registered Users Posts: 557 ✭✭✭whelzer


    malinheader wrote: »
    I hear they are going to electrify fish the river and get rid of the chub and release the rest.
    What an absolute disgrace. Who makes the rules over this.

    Its a standard approach for surveying rivers, does no harm to released fish (as far as I know). By rights they are 100% correct to remove all chub - my previous comments aside!


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Bogwoppit
    Registered Users Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Bogwoppit


    They’re an alien invasive species and don’t belong here.
    We don’t know what effects they’ll have on our rivers, you can’t apply what happens in UK rivers to what happens in ours, I lived over there long enough to know that we don’t want what they have.
    I’ve caught a lot of chub too and they’re pretty crap by all accounts. Fish up to 6lbs coming in like wet sacks, no thanks.


  • #13
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    davycc wrote: »
    Great news I love chub. delighted to hear the baxtards fishery boards feck up the kill program.

    Another species to try for!!

    Celebrating an invasive species that we have no idea what impact it will have on native species and ecosystems is about the most idiotic thing I've read on boards. And I've read a lot of idiotic nonsense on boards. Congratulations.


  • #14
    Lewis_Benson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,879 ✭✭✭Lewis_Benson


    Too late to try and remove them now.
    They are established in the river and won't be removed without killing everything else in the river also.
    They have beenn in the river for the best part of 15 years, leave them be at this point.


  • #15
    malinheader
    Registered Users Posts: 4,859 ✭✭✭malinheader


    Surely if they have been in the river for close on 15 years they must have an idea of what kind of impact they have. If any at all.
    Rte spoke to a top Irish angler on the news one night and he didn't seem to bothered at all.


  • #16
    deadlybuzzman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,874 ✭✭✭deadlybuzzman


    When you look at this over a time line starting at the end of the last ice age then almost every non salmonid is an invasive species.


  • #17
    twin_beacon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,240 ✭✭✭twin_beacon


    At this stage, is it worth IFI's time actually doing anything about it? That's a genuine question btw. Surely at this stage, it would be pretty much impossible to remove them by electorfishing alone, seeing as the last attempt was unsuccessful 10 years ago. What else can be done to remove them, that won't have a negative effect on the other species in the river?

    What are people's thoughts on how they managed to get into the Inny in the first place? Intentionally stocked by a few idiots, or brought over as live baits by a few idiots. Either way, its a very dangerous and stupid thing to do. Just use the lough in cork, or crayfish plague as an example of what can happen when an alien disease is introduced to water.
    deadlybuzzman wrote: »
    When you look at this over a time line starting at the end of the last ice age then almost every non salmonid is an invasive species.
    yea, with the exception of Pike, Eels and I guess pollen. Roach, Dace, and now Chub being the latest three, and in that order.


  • #18
    Bogwoppit
    Registered Users Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Bogwoppit


    deadlybuzzman wrote: »
    When you look at this over a time line starting at the end of the last ice age then almost every non salmonid is an invasive species.

    Colonising naturally and colonising by the hand of man are 2 very different things.

    Will IFI manage your eradicate them? Probably not, but they can massively reduce the numbers so that they don’t spread nearly as fast and far as they could.

    We don’t want these slimy wet sacks on our systems, Ireland is famous for its (relatively) pristine rivers and lakes and something like this could do serious damage to them. They really are nothing to get excited about.


  • #19
    Lewis_Benson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,879 ✭✭✭Lewis_Benson


    Bogwoppit wrote: »
    Colonising naturally and colonising by the hand of man are 2 very different things.

    Will IFI manage your eradicate them? Probably not, but they can massively reduce the numbers so that they don’t spread nearly as fast and far as they could.

    We don’t want these slimy wet sacks on our systems, Ireland is famous for its (relatively) pristine rivers and lakes and something like this could do serious damage to them. They really are nothing to get excited about.

    I'd disagree with the last line.
    I'd love to have a go for them, meant to be very hard fighting on a quiver tip and 4--6lb line.

    I'd take that over salmon fishing anyday.


  • #20
    Bogwoppit
    Registered Users Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Bogwoppit


    Lewis_Benson wrote: »
    I'd disagree with the last line.
    I'd love to have a go for them, meant to be very hard fighting on a quiver tip and 4--6lb line.

    I'd take that over salmon fishing anyday.

    You’ve obviously never caught one, you’ll be disappointed when you do.

    If you’d like to catch one that badly then head across the pond, our rivers don’t need to be wrecked just because you’d like to have a go at a chub to see if they’re fun.


  • #21
    malinheader
    Registered Users Posts: 4,859 ✭✭✭malinheader


    If the Chub have been in the river for near 15 years is there any sign that it is or has affected the balance in the river.

    Is there any evidence that the river is being affected by them.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Bogwoppit
    Registered Users Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Bogwoppit


    malinheader wrote: »
    If the Chub have been in the river for near 15 years is there any sign that it is or has affected the balance in the river.

    Is there any evidence that the river is being affected by them.

    Without a baseline survey prior to the illegal introduction and without ongoing monitoring you cannot say what the effect has been.

    At a minimum it would reduce resources available for native species, systems have a finite amount of food available and if the chub are using those resources then they’re not available for the pike, trout, salmon, bream, rudd, perch, minnow, stickleback etc. Now you have a system shift and the knock on effects can be catastrophic for some species or beneficial for others.

    Then consider the opportunistic feeding nature of the chub, they will eat anything including fish eggs and fry of all species. You could look at the UK and say they coexist alongside the other species perfectly well and yes they do, but, they ecosystems there have evolved that way from the beginning, they are quite different.

    What about the potential disease spread? We have quite a disease free environment here compared to the UK. What if these chub are hosts for a disease that could wipe out the few carp stocks we have. Coarse fishermen wouldn’t be too pleased with chub as a replacement for those would they?

    We have less species here but healthier stocks of the species we have, let’s keep it that way. After all, plenty of UK anglers travel over here to fish despite the lack of chub, I don’t hear of many irish going the other way.


  • #23
    malinheader
    Registered Users Posts: 4,859 ✭✭✭malinheader


    Bogwoppit wrote: »
    Without a baseline survey prior to the illegal introduction and without ongoing monitoring you cannot say what the effect has been.

    At a minimum it would reduce resources available for native species, systems have a finite amount of food available and if the chub are using those resources then they’re not available for the pike, trout, salmon, bream, rudd, perch, minnow, stickleback etc. Now you have a system shift and the knock on effects can be catastrophic for some species or beneficial for others.

    Then consider the opportunistic feeding nature of the chub, they will eat anything including fish eggs and fry of all species. You could look at the UK and say they coexist alongside the other species perfectly well and yes they do, but, they ecosystems there have evolved that way from the beginning, they are quite different.

    What about the potential disease spread? We have quite a disease free environment here compared to the UK. What if these chub are hosts for a disease that could wipe out the few carp stocks we have. Coarse fishermen wouldn’t be too pleased with chub as a replacement for those would they?

    We have less species here but healthier stocks of the species we have, let’s keep it that way. After all, plenty of UK anglers travel over here to fish despite the lack of chub, I don’t hear of many irish going the other way.

    Fair enough.
    Might be a biased on my behalf, caught one many years ago when only a young lad fishing worm for perch.
    Total fluke and tried numerous times after with to many different types of bait to mention but to no avail.
    Still remember it as one of my best catches as I wasn't fishing that long.


  • #24
    Lewis_Benson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,879 ✭✭✭Lewis_Benson


    Bogwoppit wrote: »
    You’ve obviously never caught one, you’ll be disappointed when you do.

    If you’d like to catch one that badly then head across the pond, our rivers don’t need to be wrecked just because you’d like to have a go at a chub to see if they’re fun.

    I don't say that (regarding our rivers).
    I merely stated that iwould like to have a go at them, and now that we know they are an established species in one of our rivers, I now can.

    They are too long in the river now to try and eradicate them, it will never be possible at this point.


  • #25
    Bogwoppit
    Registered Users Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Bogwoppit


    Lewis_Benson wrote: »
    I don't say that (regarding our rivers).
    I merely stated that iwould like to have a go at them, and now that we know they are an established species in one of our rivers, I now can.

    They are too long in the river now to try and eradicate them, it will never be possible at this point.

    Might not be possible to eradicate them completely but certainly not too difficult to reduce the numbers to a level at which they spread is severely limited.

    But sure let’s just not bother trying to keep our ecosystems in as good a condition as we can do that a few lads can have a go at them.


  • #26
    Lewis_Benson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,879 ✭✭✭Lewis_Benson


    Bogwoppit wrote: »
    Might not be possible to eradicate them completely but certainly not too difficult to reduce the numbers to a level at which they spread is severely limited.

    But sure let’s just not bother trying to keep our ecosystems in as good a condition as we can do that a few lads can have a go at them.


    I know what you mean, they should not be there at all, but I feel its too late.


  • #27
    Bogwoppit
    Registered Users Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Bogwoppit


    Lewis_Benson wrote: »
    I know what you mean, they should not be there at all, but I feel its too late.

    And your opinion is based on what?

    It’s very difficult to do and takes a long time but it’s possible. At the very minimum we should be keeping their numbers seriously in check to stop the spread.


  • #28
    twin_beacon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,240 ✭✭✭twin_beacon


    Bogwoppit wrote: »
    And your opinion is based on what?

    It’s very difficult to do and takes a long time but it’s possible. At the very minimum we should be keeping their numbers seriously in check to stop the spread.


    There are two problems I see. The first one is that IFI seemed to think the war was won in 2010, and the chub has been left to its own devices ever since then. As I said in my original post, I was shocked that IFI were only acknowledging the chub in the Inny again now, 10 years after they thought they had removed them. So, for the last 10 years, the movements of the chub, and their spread have not been tracked by IFI. If its not known where they have spread to, then trying to keep the numbers in check becomes much harder. Ive heard reports of chub caught in the Shannon, however I don't know how credible some of them are. (one report was north of Tarmonbarry, would the weir be a barrier to them? If the report is true, this could be the result of another illegal stocking)


    The second issue is, how long will IFI keep up the campaign of trying to keep their numbers down? At what point did they give up on trying to control the numbers of Dace when they were introduced? As soon as the work to control their numbers stops, the work gradually gets undone over a few years.



    I'm not pro chub btw, they shouldn't be here. But I honestly believe the battle to remove them, or control their numbers has already been lost, and anything IFI does will just be a PR stunt to keep some people happy.


  • #29
    malinheader
    Registered Users Posts: 4,859 ✭✭✭malinheader


    The way I see it is some anglers consider them wet sacks and some really like the challenge of catching a decent chub which believe me will test the best of anglers.
    I am happy that another species of fish is now there to catch. But on the other hand if there is proof or evidence that they are destroying the river then they should be removed as good as possible.
    As far as I am aware they have been here for a long time now and no evidence of damaging the natural eco system has been found.
    I stand to be corrected on this if I am wrong.


  • #30
    Lewis_Benson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,879 ✭✭✭Lewis_Benson


    Bogwoppit wrote: »
    And your opinion is based on what?

    It’s very difficult to do and takes a long time but it’s possible. At the very minimum we should be keeping their numbers seriously in check to stop the spread.

    Based on the fact that the chub have been there for at least 15 years, possibly 20.

    How would they remove the chub without killing everything else?

    I fully agree with you that they don't belong there, niehter do roach, but here we are.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Bio Mech
    Registered Users Posts: 1,038 ✭✭✭Bio Mech


    if they caught one on rod and line and they have been there unchecked for a decade then there will be thousands or tens of thousands id imagine. And likely they are already in the Shannon.

    horse has bolted


Advertisement