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

25lb trout caught on corrib

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Bizzum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,034 ✭✭✭Bizzum


    Zzippy wrote: »
    My personal opinion is that the season should open much later on the Cong River/Canal. It was moved from March 1 to March 17 to protect the big trout that are still hanging around, but IMO should be moved to May1. After this most of the big fish are gone. In fact, the canal is bone dry now so you wouldn't catch much anyway.

    I don't think a total ban is either warranted or fair on local anglers. I would much rather see a total ban on killing fish over a certain size. I think a slot limit of 13-16 inches or thereabouts would be the best way of protecting stocks on Corrib while allowing limited exploitation for the table.

    I'm rushing out the door now but even though I asked the question suggesting a total ban, it would not be my opinion as the best solution. Often time's outright bans backfire or don't get the desired result.
    The tagging surveys show when trout spawning run and be in the river so I think your opinion is fairly spot on what I'd be thinking too.
    The limit of 13-16 inches would of course have merit but is difficult to police.
    Anyway I'm outta here!


  • Options
    #33
    dodderangler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,204 ✭✭✭dodderangler


    Sure the size limit on most rivers and lakes is between 9-12 inches
    That in my opinion is a disgrace
    I for one wouldn't kill a fish under 16 inches so I very rarely kill fish anyway but just think a fish of that size should've been put back to live out the rest of its life it's avoided been caught and predators for that long seems a waste IMO


  • Options
    #34
    Paparazzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,397 ✭✭✭Paparazzo


    ironbluedun wrote: »
    Nobody is jumping on a 'put them back wagon'!

    Ehhh, have you read the thread? I was using multiquote to highlite all the people saying he's a disgrace for taking it, he should have put it back and even "piss off back to wales", but it was almost every post on the thread.


    There's too many people up on their high horse, maybe ban fishing for wild fish except on a few fish farms to keep some people happy :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #35
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    louthguy25 wrote: »
    Such a shame killing such a mighty fish, some people dont realise how long it would take this fish to reach this size and when it would spawn it would pass on its huge growth genes....
    Glory hunter is all i can say:mad: and how did he miss the 25lb released trout a couple of years ago

    More than a shame in my opinion. A disgrace.


  • Options
    #36
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Patolagola wrote: »
    there is NOTHING wrong with an angler keeping a fish for the table.

    What about for the trophy cabinet?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    bayliner
    Registered Users Posts: 569 ✭✭✭bayliner


    dodderangler wrote: »
    Sure the size limit on most rivers and lakes is between 9-12 inches
    That in my opinion is a disgrace
    I for one wouldn't kill a fish under 16 inches so I very rarely kill fish anyway but just think a fish of that size should've been put back to live out the rest of its life it's avoided been caught and predators for that long seems a waste IMO
    its 14inches on lough ree, ive about 30 trout so far(not all on ree ) but havent killed one all season, not saying i wont though, i usually have a few a yr!!! but nothing under 2lb


  • Options
    #38
    Daroxtar
    Registered Users Posts: 4,343 ✭✭✭Daroxtar


    Funnily enough I wouldn't keep a fish over 2 lb. I find that they acquire a stronger taste once they get above that and they don't fit on the pan either. I also think that in the "food pyramid" scheme of things there are millions of small fish which provide food for the bigger ones and far fewer of the big ones so i don't see the harm of talking a 12 inch trout but would balk at taking a 24 inch one. That's just me though.....


  • Options
    #39
    ironbluedun
    Registered Users Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭ironbluedun


    Bizzum wrote: »
    I would broadly agree with several points here.
    However...........(There's always an "however":)):
    I think it's disingeneous to IFI and the many progressive angling clubs throughout the catchment that I would be familar with not to mention the ongoing instream enhancements year after year. Not to mention the protection work or environmental works that are carried out day in day out.

    Just for clarity could you point out what "real protection of trout stocks" is?

    Not trying to be disingenuous or take a swipe at the IFI or clubs that do work on Irish loughs (i am a member of one) but its my honest belief that more could be done by the IFI that's all. I just wish they would do more to protect trout stocks, yes they do indeed do a lot of good work and i have not said that they do not, but its blatantly clear that more does need to be done.

    As for protection of trout stocks there are loads of measures easily done,
    A four fish bag limit is too high these days it should be much lower one trout per day is enough for anyone. Salmon anglers can catch and keep 10 fish yet with trout its virtually unlimited. Why?
    A ban on killing large and rare Ferox.
    A ban on early season for trolling for trout.
    A ban on the use of maggot's and worms in trout fisheries especially tributaries and nursery systems.
    A ban on the targeting and fishing for migrating spawning trout that are moving into in tributaries in September.
    A total and outright ban on catch and kill competitions.
    A review of the size limit rule, surely larger fish should be returned and if someone wants to kill then surely its better if they kill trout in the 1-2lb range rather than the bigger ones.
    A license fee for those who want to kill, let them contribute if they want to take.

    These some of the measures that could be brought in, largely without major cost. Sorry its back to the IFI again, not because they are an easy target but because they are the ones in the hot seat, so have they got the vision to do it?


  • Options
    #40
    fisherking
    Registered Users Posts: 374 ✭✭fisherking


    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0531/1224316987828.html


  • Options
    #41
    garancafan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭garancafan


    I am a believer in catch and release for the most part (i.e. I will keep a one pounder for the pan). However I find myself in a dilemma when it comes to ferox trout. Given that they are cannibals would it not be better for stock numbers if they were targeted and killed?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Bizzum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,034 ✭✭✭Bizzum


    garancafan wrote: »
    dilemma when it comes to ferox trout. Given that they are cannibals would it not be better for stock numbers if they were targeted and killed?

    The bigger ones feed almost exclusively on Roach, so minimal impact on Trout numbers.


  • Options
    #43
    Bizzum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,034 ✭✭✭Bizzum


    ironbluedun wrote: »
    Not trying to be disingenuous or take a swipe at the IFI or clubs that do work on Irish loughs (i am a member of one) but its my honest belief that more could be done by the IFI that's all. I just wish they would do more to protect trout stocks, yes they do indeed do a lot of good work and i have not said that they do not, but its blatantly clear that more does need to be done.

    As for protection of trout stocks there are loads of measures easily done,
    A four fish bag limit is too high these days it should be much lower one trout per day is enough for anyone. Salmon anglers can catch and keep 10 fish yet with trout its virtually unlimited. Why?
    A ban on killing large and rare Ferox.
    A ban on early season for trolling for trout.
    A ban on the use of maggot's and worms in trout fisheries especially tributaries and nursery systems.
    A ban on the targeting and fishing for migrating spawning trout that are moving into in tributaries in September.
    A total and outright ban on catch and kill competitions.
    A review of the size limit rule, surely larger fish should be returned and if someone wants to kill then surely its better if they kill trout in the 1-2lb range rather than the bigger ones.
    A license fee for those who want to kill, let them contribute if they want to take.

    These some of the measures that could be brought in, largely without major cost. Sorry its back to the IFI again, not because they are an easy target but because they are the ones in the hot seat, so have they got the vision to do it?

    Thanks for the reply. IFI enforce legislation, not draught it. In many cases the measures you speak of could be easily implemented by the angling clubs. EG. There is no state bag limit for Trout (though I hear talk of one!), any club could vote into being a 1 or 2 fish bag limit if the will was there. Or indeed catch and kill competitions.
    I would be in broad agreement with several of the measures you raise. As anglers we should keep pressure on all relevant bodies and seek improvements.
    If the vision isn't there let us be the first to remind them of that!


Advertisement