PIKE ARE NATIVE - IFI

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Flysfisher wrote: »

From bones found at Mesolithic sites in Ireland. The fish diet of Mesolithic people was broken down salmon and trout 85% eels, bass, flounder and some plaice making up the remaining 15%.
Our first peoples didn't eat pike, when they ate everything else they could, why did they not eat pike? They would have been a lot easier for them to catch. They did not eat them because they were not here.
A fine fish, but alas not a native fish.
Science can be made but history can't.
Not saying any more on it.:)

You would base your hypothesis on scarce observation over clear DNA evidence? Fair enough, you are entitled to do so but i am astounded.
As for history not being made. It is quite the opposite. History is being revised and rewritten every day as we learn more - as is science.

Zzippy

Vihaan Sparse Speakeasy wrote: »

Always possible but they are so widespread that it has always been suspected that they are absent from some areas because they were eradicated to preserve game fish. Not unlike raptors were in the past. It's just a thought and i feel we should be more open to discussion on these issues but unfortunately anglers have a vested interest in particular species in particular waters.

Serious question - do you honestly think they were present in other areas previously? And do you honestly think they were actually eradicated from any large waterbody? Have you any idea of the scale of what you're suggesting? If fisheries haven't been able to do it over the last century, with their resources and modern equipment, how would it have been possible in the past with more limited resources and inferior equipment?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Yes, I do. And fisheries have cleared pike from systems.

I have no vested interest or overwhelming desire to see pike in every river and lake but as an environmentalist I can see that this particular species could very well have been native to all waters on this small island at some time in the past 8000 years. Whether they should be reintroduced is a different matter and I'm not that pushed about it, as they are plentiful elsewhere. I just don't understand the reluctance to accept the fact that they are native and that they may once have been widespread.

tin79

Flysfisher wrote: »

Yes your largely correct there, but no look one expert scientist says something writes a fancy report about what they Think what happened and then another one comes along and says something different. I have been listening to these fishery experts for years and little changes.

Me I will trust our history and heritage. It hasn't been wrong thus far.

Ps when you said criminals, you weren't too far wrong.

And thus man sought to fool himself.

You are free to believe what you want to of course. From your posts I doubt you have the perspective to objectively read the report and judge it on content alone as you seem to have a chip on your shoulder. Your own bias is blinkering you IMO.

I haven't had a chance to read the full study yet BTW and the IFI summary is a little lacking in detail. I would like to see the full paper before I commit.

The authors are geneticists BTW not fisheries scientists.

tin79

Flysfisher wrote: »

From bones found at Mesolithic sites in Ireland. The fish diet of Mesolithic people was broken down salmon and trout 85% eels, bass, flounder and some plaice making up the remaining 15%.
Our first peoples didn't eat pike, when they ate everything else they could, why did they not eat pike? They would have been a lot easier for them to catch. They did not eat them because they were not here.
A fine fish, but alas not a native fish.
Science can be made but history can't.
Not saying any more on it.:)

Personally I think you are making some assumptions there.

Firstly Salmon and sea trout would have been in vast abundance back then and the fact that they were migratory and highly mobile through river systems made then easy to target by primitive methods.

If you look at the sea fish listed they are all recognized eating species. Your assumptions are based only on presence in Irish waters at the time. If that's the case where are herring on that list, mackerel, dogfish, sprat, ray, mullet. Where they all absent too?

No they were there but they were just not part of the Mesolithic diet. So lack of identification of fish bones cannot be 100% reconciled with presence or absence.

tin79

Zzippy wrote: »

Serious question - do you honestly think they were present in other areas previously? And do you honestly think they were actually eradicated from any large waterbody? Have you any idea of the scale of what you're suggesting? If fisheries haven't been able to do it over the last century, with their resources and modern equipment, how would it have been possible in the past with more limited resources and inferior equipment?

That's only if you assume removal from a system can only be man made.

Removal could have seen by disease, lack of competitiveness, ecological change. Look at the burbot in the UK. They weren't eradicated but are pretty much gone now.

Zzippy

Vihaan Sparse Speakeasy wrote: »

Yes, I do. And fisheries have cleared pike from systems.

I have no vested interest or overwhelming desire to see pike in every river and lake but as an environmentalist I can see that this particular species could very well have been native to all waters on this small island at some time in the past 8000 years. Whether they should be reintroduced is a different matter and I'm not that pushed about it, as they are plentiful elsewhere. I just don't understand the reluctance to accept the fact that they are native and that they may once have been widespread.

Please, could you name these systems where fisheries have actually eradicated pike?

I have no reluctance to accept pike can be native, I'm a trained biologist and the scientific evidence now points to natural colonisation, so I've no problem with that. I do have a problem with people extrapolating from that the inference that pike were once widespread i.e. present all around Ireland. There is no scientific evidence for this. Fish have natural colonisation pathways - migratory (diadromous) fish can colonise from the sea to all parts of a waterbody connected and accessible from the sea. Freshwater fish have greater difficulty without human intervention. At the end of the ice age, its been postulated that what is now the Irish Sea was more like a lake, with very reduced salinity levels. Its easy to see how pike would have colonised the east coast therefore. Its quite a stretch to see how they could naturally colonise the western seaboard, and there is no scientific evidence that they ever did.

tin79 wrote: »

That's only if you assume removal from a system can only be man made.

Removal could have seen by disease, lack of competitiveness, ecological change. Look at the burbot in the UK. They weren't eradicated but are pretty much gone now.

My post was in reply to Vihaan Sparse Speakeasy's post where he said

it has always been suspected that they are absent from some areas because they were eradicated to preserve game fish

I didn't assume anything.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

Flysfisher wrote: »

Me I will trust our history and heritage. It hasn't been wrong thus far.

Thats fine, ignore science.

tin79

Zzippy wrote: »

My post was in reply to Srameen's post where he said......

I didn't assume anything.

Apologies Zzippy. I missed that.

I also meant to say "take the general assumption" rather than suggesting you personally assumed it. Didn't phrase it very well.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Zzippy wrote: »

My post was in reply to Srameen's post where he said I didn't assume anything.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail1988042000038?opendocument

http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2007-03-27.1697.0

http://www.angling-in-ireland.com/archive/pages/Pike%20Policy%20Report%205.htm

Zzippy

Vihaan Sparse Speakeasy wrote: »

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail1988042000038?opendocument

http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2007-03-27.1697.0

We all know that fisheries have, and still do, remove pike from "game" fisheries. But you originally stated you believe that pike had been "eradicated to preserve game fish", and that this was the reason they were not present in some fisheries. That's very different from managing pike numbers, which is all that fisheries can do. It is virtually impossible to eradicate pike from a large waterbody, which is what you suggested had been done. I challenged you to name any of the waterbodies where you claimed pike had been eradicated and you haven't been able to do so. The fact is pike have not been eradicated or cleared successfully from any large fishery in Ireland by human interference.

J. Ramone

breghall wrote: »

So can i ask them to stock up the Slaney then, and save me travelling for miles to do some piking :P

They have always been present in the Slaney in very low numbers. Rathvilly and Baltinglass are the only places I've seen or heard of pike. They are more numerous in the Dereen.

floattuber_lee

i always found it hard to believe that pike were native in the uk and the states yet failed to colonise ireland?

Budawanny

Vihaan Sparse Speakeasy wrote: »

Should the same be said for Sea Eagles or Red Kites? If pike are native to Ireland who knows if they are now merely lost to some areas.

The boundaries of an ecosystem for a bird are fundamentally diferent in scope to the boundaries of an ecosystem of a fish.

you can indeed say that introducing a sea eagle is a reaonable act because it is conceivable that it can naturally move to any point of the island and in indeed thrive /breed in most of it.

you cannot say the same for a pike , a perch , a trout etc. its indifferent whether its a pike or a perch or a trout. there movement is constrained to there watershed and so water systems are distinct ecosystems.

its Zoology 101 to be honest.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Budawanny wrote: »

The boundaries of an ecosystem for a bird are fundamentally diferent in scope to the boundaries of an ecosystem of a fish.

you can indeed say that introducing a sea eagle is a reaonable act because it is conceivable that it can naturally move to any point of the island and in indeed thrive /breed in most of it.

you cannot say the same for a pike , a perch , a trout etc. its indifferent whether its a pike or a perch or a trout. there movement is constrained to there watershed and so water systems are distinct ecosystems.

its Zoology 101 to be honest.

I agree with what you say (PhD in Zoology actually) but my point was in relation to reintroduction of pike to systems where they were native but are now extinct to that area. If you want to take your zoology 101 To it's limits you could argue that the birds could once again make their way to Ireland naturally due to their mobility.
Anyway, not what the point was supposed to be illustrating.

EmptyTree

floattuber_lee wrote: »

i always found it hard to believe that pike were native in the uk and the states yet failed to colonise ireland?

I'm completely open to correction (and don't mean to sound smart) but as far as I know Barbel is native to the UK yet we have no native Barbel here. Odd I know, but I guess it does happen.

Zzippy

floattuber_lee wrote: »

i always found it hard to believe that pike were native in the uk and the states yet failed to colonise ireland?

There are many species native to the UK that never made it to Ireland. Look up island biogeography, an island isolated from a mainland or bigger island will typically have fewer species. We pretty much have fewer species of every group than the UK, and fewer again than mainland Europe.

floattuber_lee

Zzippy wrote: »

There are many species native to the UK that never made it to Ireland. Look up island biogeography, an island isolated from a mainland or bigger island will typically have fewer species. We pretty much have fewer species of every group than the UK, and fewer again than mainland Europe.

sorry if i came across as stupid, i know fish species such as grayling exist in the uk and state side. i was just meaning i was more amazed that these fish are absent from ireland yet appear next door in the uk and across the pond.

Zzippy

floattuber_lee wrote: »

sorry if i came across as stupid, i know fish species such as grayling exist in the uk and state side. i was just meaning i was more amazed that these fish are absent from ireland yet appear next door in the uk and across the pond.

Not stupid at all. Unless you studied zoology or ecology you wouldn't have even heard of island biogeography. I did study those subjects and I still learn stuff all the time on these boards...

floattuber_lee

i have a degree an marine and freshwater biology and one in marine science. i understand the concept i am just amazed by it.

breghall

J. Ramone wrote: »

They have always been present in the Slaney in very low numbers. Rathvilly and Baltinglass are the only places I've seen or heard of pike. They are more numerous in the Dereen.

Are you sure of this ?? is so why haven't they been found further down river in the Slaney then over the years?

dodderangler

What's the story with Muskie?
Were they always native to the Americas?

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

dodderangler wrote: »

What's the story with Muskie?
Were they always native to the Americas?

I believe so.
Im pretty sure pike and muskies are native to north america

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

dodderangler wrote: »

What's the story with Muskie?
Were they always native to the Americas?

They are not native to all the united states.
This from the US government-

Native Range: St. Lawrence River-Great Lakes, Hudson (Red River), and Mississippi River basins, from Quebec to southeastern Manitoba; south in the Appalachians to Georgia and in the west to Iowa (Page and Burr 1991). Crossman (1978) gave a distribution map. Although never reported from Mississippi, considering the fact that muskellunge are (or were) native to the main Tennessee River, the species almost certainly historically entered the extreme northeastern part of that state (Gilbert, personal communication).

J. Ramone

breghall wrote: »

Are you sure of this ?? is so why haven't they been found further down river in the Slaney then over the years?

100%, I notice the scientist has a specific request for samples from the Slaney. There was a nice example of a Slaney Pike caught in Baltinglass on display in Fentons' Pub(or whatever its known as now, hopefully it's equally as hospitable) in the Glen of Imaal . I don't know if the cast is still there.

I had my leg pulled probably 30 years ago of how easy it was to catch a salmon on opening day in Rathvilly. The proud captor quickly threw it on a roof to the cats. Do many realise how closely pike are related to salmon and trout, they're not too far off the tree. I'd still like to see how a limestone lake would do without pike.

There was a habbit of stroke-hauling pike around Rathvilly. A farmer I
met on the Dereen told me of someone taking holidays to fish for specimen pike on his land years beforehand. I have no idea why pike aren't found further down the Slaney.

jkchambers

I used to be a member of the Eastern Regional Fisheries Board. There were 3 to 4 Slaney salmon draft netsmen on the Board. They told me that they used to catch the odd good sized pike in the nets 20 plus years ago.

breghall

jkchambers wrote: »

I used to be a member of the Eastern Regional Fisheries Board. There were 3 to 4 Slaney salmon draft netsmen on the Board. They told me that they used to catch the odd good sized pike in the nets 20 plus years ago.

Wow that is very interesting to read Jk. Thanks, i'll look into it a bit further i think..

bencarvosso

i remember reading a list of giant pike caught in ireland in a mag, i think al rawlings did the list, and it contained one or poss two fish from the slaney. this article was ten years or so ago