Over the last four months we have tried to give an objective account of our finds regarding the 16th Century introduction theory held by the Irish Fisheries. In this addendum we will use some old and also more recent references we came across to give our personnel opinion on the management of the islands’ pike stocks.

The 1995-reference

In February 1995 Central Fisheries Senior Research Officer M. O’Grady published a report called "The Necessity for Pike Culling in Managing Ireland’s Premier Salmonid Lake Fisheries". From the introduction we quote the following :

"Regrettably since the 16th century, many fish species have been introduced to Irish waters (Went 1957). Thankfully few of these have thrived in many of our premier salmonid lakes. There are two exceptions, pike and perch…"

We have proved over the last months that pike were in Ireland long before the 16th Century. Also, that the basis for the above quote, the work of Dr. Went, contains serious shortcomings. Yet, the continuous indoctrination of the introduction theory has formed the basis for a massive official pike slaughter, (be it with gillnets, rotenone, longlines, electrical equipment etc) since the middle 20th Century. Dozens of reports like the above have been written to justify the pike-killing practises. The report on the Fish Stock Survey carried out on the Western Lakes in 1996 comes to mind. On Lough Mask not enough pike were found in the gillnets during the Survey period to keep the "necessity for pike culling" standing. An extra netting was done after the survey in the pike spawning areas. The unfortunate pike found in the nets made up the numbers and the theory stood. Is this Science?

Just to show how science has been used (or abused) but should any scientific approach not start off on the correct basis? In other words, if the basis (a 16th Century introduction) is wrong, how can the policy be right?

About pike-discrimination

It is our firm belief there appears to be a general, and ongoing, blind hatred, prejudice and discrimination against pike within the Irish Fisheries since the middle of the last Century. The above mentioned stock survey-incident is only one example. Consider the (illegal) trade in specimen-pike for the glass case industry, allegedly carried out by fishery officers? Or the sale of containers full of pike (be they dead or alive) to petfood companies? Or the absolute lack of control of the existing pike bye-laws? Etc, etc. Is it not high time an INDEPENDENT commission looked into all these mishaps within the Irish Fisheries, Central and Regional? We are told that the Central Fisheries have five Game Angling scientists and only one for Coarse Angling. Whilst we surely do not want to take away any of the importance of trout and salmon angling we cannot understand this imbalance considering the importance of coarse angling to the country itself and from a tourist (revenue) point of view. Promises have been made, policies have been redirected but at the end of the day the unwritten bottom line remains the same: "The only good pike is a dead pike."!

The Inland Fisheries Development Programme 1994-1998 published by the Western Regional Fisheries Board comes to mind. In it we read : "The Board will promote pike fishing on Corrib lakes,…". Should we compare this statement to a drunkards’ shortlived New Years resolution?

That was then…

Having read numerous reports and having gone through piles of old and recent references we have come to our own view on the problems of Irish waters, it’s fish stocks in general and on the problems of salmonid lake fisheries (and their relation to pike) in particular. Until the 20th Century fish stocks were healthy and in balance with each other and nature. During the 20th Century a number of incidents and practises happened that upset this (probably very fragile) balance. First of all man started fishing lakes and rivers more and more. All trout and salmon caught were killed, there was hardly any pressure on pike stocks. Salmonid spawning areas underwent drastic, dramatic changes. Overgrazing, drainage, you name it. Trout and salmon found it harder and harder to reach or even find suitable spawning grounds. Pike spawning areas were little affected. Last but not least pollution started setting in, slowly but surely. Salmonid species were the first to sense the change, it soon affected their numbers. Pike be ing more resistant, than trout and salmon, got away lightly (at first), once more…Then culling started. We can only guess what effects the systematic (official) efforts to wipe out perch stocks by means of traps and the continuous use of nets and long lines for eels are. Would these contribute to the return to and maintenance of the natural balance?

All these changes resulted in a situation where trout and salmon were getting a hard time from all sides. Reduced spawning areas, polluted waters, growing numbers of greedy anglers and a normal pike stock as neighbour. Culling the pike seems to be an obvious remedy to reduce the pressure on salmonid stocks. In the long term though, this policy gives no guarantees that salmonid stocks will thrive again. Half a century of pike-culling has clearly shown this. Killing pike will not repair the spawning grounds, it will not bring back pristine water quality, and neither will it reduce the pressure of anglers’ kills.

To repair spawning grounds appears a practical problem to us which can be overcome. Protecting salmonid stocks against anglers can be done easily by imposing a bag limit of say two fish together with a ban on trade in (wild) trout and salmon. Examples of the introduction of such bye-laws in countries like Canada, Australia or New-Zealand are well documented and fish stocks rose in a relatively short period. We cannot understand why Fishery Boards have never made any attempts to encourage a catch & release mentality among anglers, given the widespread availability of such information. The big black shadow which hangs over all waters is pollution. Numerous countries have seen their fisheries destroyed by it and if Ireland doesn’t react quick, it will head down the same slope.

Yes, there is a mountain to climb, but only if these three main culprits are tackled is there a chance that the afore mentioned natural balance returns to our inland waters. Ill advised, shortsighted policies like pike culling do not work. History has delivered the proof that the natural balance does not need control of any fish species, by mankind.

Indeed, we have shown over the last months that pike were in the Shannon system late 14th century (and most probably much before that). No need to stress the importance of the Shannon-system, covering huge lakes like Ree and Derg, numerous big and small rivers, but also lakes like Sheelin, Owel and Ennel, which have undergone massive pike culling programs.

Until the 20th century, during a period of over 500 years, salmonids, pike and other fish species managed to live together peacefully. All of a sudden, in the 20th century, man decides pike are trouble. We fail to understand the logic in this.

And this is now.

Today, we can see that salmonid stocks are on their knees on nearly all waters. Heavily culled waters like Sheelin and Carra provide only better fishing in reports and statistics. Pike stocks are also in dramatic decline. Continuous official efforts to reduce their numbers together with pollution and increasing angling pressure brings us to a situation where pike stock too are at an alarming low rate.

Only recently has pollution been officially recognised. If we take the before mentioned O’Grady "necessity for pike-culling"-report from 1995 we find on this matter : "In general terms, for the entire Corrib, Mask and Carra systems, the E.P.A. reports no marked decline in the environmental quality…" It continues : "…the absence of any concrete evidence to link declining trout numbers to a deterioration in their spawning and nursery habitat, or climatic changes, proves beyond doubt the pike/trout link in terms of declining numbers of latter species." This report came one year after the Greenpeace Mask-Survey which came up with alarming pollution levels on the lake. This was also the time when people like Alan Broderick started shouting from the rooftops that pike-culling provided absolutely no solution to a dwindling trout population.

The 1780-reference

We would like to finish by putting two quotes against each other. The first one comes once more from the O’Grady "necessity for pike-culling"-report : "In Irish waters, once pike and cyprinids are prolific in a lake fishery, trout numbers never reach a level which can provide quality angling over a full season."

The second one comes from "A Tour in Ireland" written by Arthur Young in 1780 : "The Shannon adds not a little to the convenience and agreeableness of a residence so near to it. Besides affording these sorts of wild fowl, the quantity of its fish are amazing. Pikes swarm in it, and rise in weight to 50lbs…A trowling rod here gets you a bite in a moment, of a pike from 20 to 40 lb…I had the pleasure of seeing a fisherman bring three trouts, weighing 14lbs…A couple of boats…have been known to catch an incredible quantity of trout. Colonel Prittie, in one morning, caught four stone, odd pounds, thirty-two trouts : in general they rise from 3 to 9 lb. Perch swarm; they appeared in the Shannon for the first time about ten years ago, in such plenty that the poor lived on them. Bream of 6lb. Eels very plentiful. There are many gillaroos in the river, one of 12lb weight…Upon the whole, these circumstances, with the pleasure of shooting and boating on the river, added to the glorious view it yields, and which is eno ugh at any time to clear the mind, render this neighbourhood one of the most enviable situations to live in that I have seen in Ireland."

No more explanation needed we think,…