National Angling Development Plan

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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 ?

gary29428

Yeah, later then the last few years.