8.1 THE PIKE IN IRELAND : A (NECESSARY) REVIEW

Part 1: Liús

The Dutch Angling journalist Jan Schreiner is widely regarded as one of the most influential writers of the 20th century. He wrote over 50 books about all kinds of angling and contributed to several angling magazines. After World War II he started writing about the joys and pleasure of fishing, a pastime up to then only known for food supply reasons. Most importantly, his writings laid the foundations for a general belief and acceptance that catch-and-release fishing is a very important aspect, necessary to protect our sport, given the increased pressure of pollution, over fishing etc…

Jan Schreiner was a frequent visitor to the island of Ireland. He loved the country and spent many weeks fishing for salmon, trout, pike, perch, tench, bream etc. He was, and still is, well known, in the Foxford area in particular. In 1973 he wrote "Sport fishing in Ireland", another great example of his fabulous and highly poetic writing style. Yet, when it came to the management of Irish waters, he could be very critical. In this book he spends some time explaining the attitude of the Irish fisheries towards pike. He didn't give them many compliments…Probably the single most important statement in this context was the following: " It would be very interesting if someone someday would dig into all the accepted facts which, despite their very poor foundations, are still generally accepted as truths". A clear allusion to the theories held on by the Irish Fisheries that pike is not a native species and has to be culled on trout waters.

During the gillnetting campaign carried out by the Western Regional Fisheries Board on Loughs Mask, Corrib and Carra in winter 98 and spring 99 a passionate debate took place in the local and national press. One contributor wrote the following in one of his letters: "…pike, a piscovore whose Irish name is 'Gaill Eisc' or foreign fish…should therefore be removed from these lakes…" A short while later, I was told by an Irish speaking person living in the Gealtacht that this was incorrect since the Irish for pike was 'liús'.

Since then, my good friend Shane Garrett and I, together with the help of numerous very kind and helpful people, have gone through piles of information and documents, in order to puzzle together the history of Irish pike. We have also focused on arguments brought forward by Irish Fisheries Scientists claiming that pike are of recent introduction. More than one year later and although our work is far from finished, we would like to share our finds, to date, with the interested reader. Indeed, we came across a number of very interesting references.

Let's first of all solve the "gaill iasc - liús" problem. Open any Irish dictionary and you'll see pike being translated as liús. Some dictionaries however mention gaill iasc as well. It appears that gaill iasc is a literary coinage, a creation from the 17th or 18th century. The original word for pike, liús, is much older. Although it is impossible to pinpoint exactly when it was first used it appears that liús dates from somewhere between the 13th and the 15th century, indicating that pike could very well have been on this island much longer than we were always led to believe…

The Irish Fisheries have always seen the gaill iasc theory as a solid base to prove their introduction theory. They have scaled down this theory to the belief that gaill iasc is the Irish word for pike used in some parts of West Mayo. Incorrect again, I'm afraid. In The Irish naturalists Journal, Volume 8, 1942-46, an article "Local names of Irish Fishes" by G.P. Farran is published which mentions Liús for Mayo. Not a mention of gaill iasc. Together with this argument it is often said that pike cannot be native because there are lakes where pike are absent. It appears to me that it is very difficult to defend this argument. There are numerous lakes where no trout or salmon can be found but do we see them therefore as introduced?

Besides, to say that gaill iasc means foreign fish is in itself all too simplistic and incomplete. Whilst iasc means undoubtedly fish, gaill can mean foreign but can also mean "foreigners-" or "Gaul" or "Norseman". The word gaill iasc therefore does not prove at all that pike is an introduced fish species.

Another argument of the introduction theory is that there is no old Irish name for pike. Unlike for species like salmon and trout which both have old Irish names. Sounds solid at first sight but doesn't make sense either I'm afraid. Let's give our salty friend the mackerel a thought, or the cod maybe. I think everyone will agree that these are native species to the Irish coasts. Yet, they have no old Irish names! One could also look at our feathered friends and notice that a bird like the partridge has no old Irish name, yet is native to this country. In other words, the fact that pike has no old Irish name does not prove anything. Surely not that it is introduced.

Our "find" of the word Liús has proven very important since. The word keeps coming back in different publications and references and it will prove to be very significant indeed as these series of the highly interesting journeys along the history of Irish pike unfolds.

So far for the introduction. In the next article we bring Dr. Went upon stage, and then it gets really interesting.

Part 2 : Went

In 1957 Arthur E.J. Went wrote "The Pike in Ireland". It was published in The Irish Naturalists' Journal. I can recommend the reading of these journals to anyone with an interest in the history of Irish nature and wildlife. A winter's evening by the open fire, fueled with a glass of your favorite drink becomes a real treat when reading through these Journals.

Went was a noted historian who wrote several articles about Irish fish. In the above mentioned publication Went came to the conclusion that "…it would certainly appear that it (the pike that is) is not a native fish." To come to this belief Went sums up a number of references and it has been extremely interesting to look into these in detail. It is important to point out that Went's work is still the main foundation of the pike's introduction theory held on to by the Irish Fisheries.

Part of his introduction theory relies on the absence of an old Irish name for pike. Went also writes that " the more modern name for pike is gailliasc, which literally means strange or foreign fish." In the first article we have shown that both conclusions are incorrect.

It is of extreme importance to note that Went did not investigate the Irish word Liús (meaning pike and presumably dating from somewhere between the 13th and 15th century.). The word Liús appeared several times in articles published in The Irish Naturalists' Journal written by other contributors. It seems highly unlikely that Went did not read these, as he had articles himself in some of these Journals. Did Went ignore "Liús"? If so, why?

We come to the heart of Went's introduction theory when he brings up his key witness Giraldus Cambrensis. Giraldus Cambrensis was a Welsh archdeacon who visited Ireland on two occasions at the end of the twelfth century. He wrote the "Topography of Ireland". Went quotes Cambrensis in his article as follows :

…The rivers and the lakes are rich in fish peculiar to themselves, and especially in fish of three kinds, namely, salmon, trout and mud-eels. … But some fine fish are wanting. I mean pike, perch, roach, gardon and gudgeon. Minnow, loach, bullheads, verones, and nearly all that do not have their seminal origin in tidal rivers are absent also."

Now let's have a look at the original translation of Cambrensis' writing. I quote from the same passage.

"The rivers and the lakes are rich in fish peculiar to themselves, and especially in fish of three kinds, namely, salmon, trout, and mud-eels. But some fine fish, found in other regions, and some magnificent fresh-water fish are wanting. I mean pike, perch, roach, gardon and gudgeon. Minnow, loach, bullheads, verones, and nearly all that do not have their seminal origin in tidal rivers are absent also."

The underlined part of the latter quotation was omitted by Went in his article. I have to stress on the extreme importance of this "mistake" in Went's work. We know that Cambrensis was in parts of the Southeast of the country and he might have travelled inland. When Cambrensis wrote "…found in other regions…", did he mean there was pike etc. in other parts of the country? Why did Went omit this vital passage?

This patent misquotation by Went is the point of discussion here. However, Cambrensis' work should not be given more credit than it deserves. Indeed, some academics have their doubts about the value of Cambrensis' work. One of the reasons being the way in which he described Ireland :

"On the whole the land is low-lying on all sides and along the coast; but towards the centre it rises up very high to many hills and even high mountains".

We all know that it is just the other way around. Mountains around the coastline (Wicklow-Kerry-Connemara) and flat in the Midlands. This mistake of his is sufficient to conclude that he did not see great parts of the country. Cambrensis also gave accounts of "a fish with three gold teeth" and "a man that was half an ox". Up to today Giraldus Cambrensis is still regarded as a reliable witness by the Irish Fisheries.

Reading on in Went's article we come across the following passage :
"…we find in A.K. Longfield's 'Anglo-Irish trade' in the 16th century that pike were exported in the early part of that century to some of the smaller towns in the south of England. We do not know, of course, the origin of these fish."

Let's quote from A.K. Longfield's 'Anglo-Irish trade'direct now :
"At the end of the fifteenth century and beginning of the sixteenth, however, they (this is the pike) appear as coming regularly from Youghal, Dungarvan, Cork and Kinsale to the Cornish ports…"

Three important observations can be made here. Firstly, why did Went question the origin of these Irish pike, exported to England? Whereas it says clearly, in the book where he refers to, that they came from several named Irish towns.
Secondly, Longfield mentions the export of pike to England from Ireland at the end of the fifteenth century. Further in the same book we even find a detailed reference of export of pike from Ireland to England in 1492. Why does Went ignore these pre-sixteenth century references to pike?

Thirdly, if there was a thriving trade of pike in Ireland at the end of the fifteenth century they must have been pretty widespread by then and could hardly have been introduced recently. (If introduced at all!)

Went's article "The Pike in Ireland" contains more references to support his introduction theory. Some of them relate to personal notes of individuals, which therefore cannot be looked into. Others still need verification. Yet, it is clear that his work contains serious shortcomings.

And there is something else. Which is, again, of major importance. Arthur E.J. Went worked for the Fisheries Branch of the Department of Agriculture and was a founding trustee of the Salmon Research Trust. People who knew him testify that he was a very dedicated game angler who had no great regards for the fish species called pike. I am told that the latter statement is a very attenuated expression of his feelings towards pike. This gives rise to a serious conflict of interest. With this knowledge in mind, how could (and still can) this study of the Irish pike be the main foundation of the Irish Fisheries' policy towards pike?

Considering the evidence of shortcomings in his work and the obvious conflict of interests should we regard Dr. Went as a reliable source?

In the next article we will loosen some more bricks in the "introduction-wall" the Irish Fisheries have built over the last century as we will make the single most important revelation in our series on the history of pike so far…

Part 3 : Of Pike and Poets

Before getting to the heart of our third article on the history of pike in Ireland we need to clarify an often held misunderstanding. There is no concrete evidence to suggest that pike are an introduced species in Ireland. The introduction theory is based on references that have been regarded over the last century by the Irish Fisheries as conclusive. This is only a theory. In our first two articles we have shown that some of those references are incomplete, incorrect or even misleading. Others we regard as naïve and surely not conclusive enough to classify pike as introduced. One example…

Around 1900 a commercial fisherman on Lough Conn catches a fish, which he cannot recognize. Subsequently it is identified as a pike. This incident is one of the reasons why the current Research Department of the Central Fisheries regard pike as introduced. When reading the "Doomsday Book of Mammoth Pike" by Fred Buller, one comes across several specimen pike caught on Lough Conn dating back as far as 1870. (One such specimen is currently on display in the Natural History Museum in Dublin.) In other words, at a time when our commercial fisherman caught the fish he could not identify, other people were claiming 40 and 50-pounders from the same lake! Clearly, pike must have been around for quiet a while if the lake was able to produce such monster fish. The fish determination skills from our friend seem to be in line with the science the Fisheries are serving us.

Let's conclude with a noteworthy passage from the same book :
"Lough Conn, whose big pike and big trout once attracted a certain type of fisherman (the big-fish man) from all over Europe, now caters to those who are content to take a more certain bag of smaller fish (trout). This change is due principally to the systematic destruction of pike." The book was written in 1979.

Let's move on and look into another reference on which the introduction theory is based. We quote from a letter we received from Mr. P. Fitzmaurice, Director of Research of the Central Fisheries : "A review of historical Irish annals carried out in the 1950's found no reference to pike in any documentation prior to the 15th Century."

We presume Mr. Fitzmaurice refers to the article "The Pike in Ireland" written by Arthur E.J. Went in 1957. We dealt with Went and the contents of his work in our second article. However, apart from proving that Went's work was incomplete and parts of it incorrect, we also discovered a few more interesting facts that prove Mr. Fitzmaurice's quote highly doubtful.
"Regimen na Sláinte" is a medical text from c. 1420, which contains references to pike. It is an Irish translation of a Latin medical tract, which originated in Italy. Interesting to note is that the person who translated the text (in the early 15th century) used the Irish word liús for pike, rather than merely transliterating the Latin lucius. It appears that the Irish translator was already familiar with the Irish word for pike. Since the original Latin text of this work was written in Italy, the references to pike are not directly relevant to the presence or absence of the fish in Ireland. However, the fact that the Irish translator knew of an Irish word for pike seems proof to us that the fish species occurred in Ireland early 15th Century.

For the sceptical ones among us we will back up this theory and take it one step further.
The Irish Grammatical Tracts are a collection of rules of grammar and diction, which assisted student poets in learning their craft. We will quote one such short poem which was written ca 1400 :

"do sgoilt giolla gég don ghiús
do bhrég liús na Sionna suas."

It was Chinese to us as well so we got the experts to translate it for us. The translation sounds as follows:

"The young man split a branch of the fir-tree,
he enticed up the pike of the Shannon."

This poem brings us the confirmation that there was indeed pike in Ireland, more precisely in the Shannon, ca 1400 and that no one found this remarkable. That no one found this remarkable leads us to conclude that they were there for quiet a while. It is tempting to draw further conclusions considering the hundreds of kilometers the Shannon covers and the numerous big and small lakes it connects.

The importance of the two above mentioned references taken into account we can rest assured that the claim that there was no (reference to) pike in Ireland before the 15th Century is outdated and incorrect. After all, the review the current Research Department of the Irish Fisheries base themselves on dates from the middle of the 20th Century…

In our final article we come to the conclusion of our series on the history of pike in Ireland. We will approach the pike's history from a few other angles, and bring up a few sources which consider the pike as being native to the Irish country…

Part 4 : The Esox-Files Conclusions

With this article, we come to the conclusion of our series on the history of pike in Ireland. We should add however that we are currently preparing a special appendix to our story, in which we will focus on conservation. As our research into this intriguing subject has become an ongoing process, updates can be expected. Before we start drawing conclusions about the significance of the contents of our articles, we will first of all look at the pike's history in Ireland from a few other angles.

Native or not?
Although it seems almost sure, that pike have spread in certain parts of the island later than in others, nobody has ever provided concrete evidence of its introduction. Indeed, some sources claim pike as being native. In 1950 Robert Lloyd Praeger wrote "The Natural History of Ireland", in which he classifies the pike as an Irish native fish species. One hundred years before that, William Thomson notes pike as being native. Aodh Mac Domhnaill from County Meath wrote a tract on natural history in the same period. Pike is the first fish he mentions as being native. He describes it as "clean, bright and tasty". We know from our last article that pike are proven to be in Ireland over 400 years before that. However, it is still very interesting to see that the pike was an established part of the piscine fauna in Co. Meath in the early 19th century and was not referred to as being introduced but classified native.

Other species in other countries.
In our research we have not limited ourselves to Ireland alone. We have looked around Europe and came across several interesting "incidents" which give hope of unraveling the pike's history here. Our first stop is Spain and we meet two old friends; Arthur Went and Giraldus Cambrensis. The latter was referred to in a publication of The Irish Naturalist' Journal written by Arthur Went in 1949. Went relies on Cambrensis' knowledge but as we already know, both are not "the perfect example of a reliable witness"! Went quotes Cambrensis' who claimed that "no part of Spain produces pike". A cave painting of a pike in Northern Spain drawn in the Stone Ages proves that they were not introduced and that once again Cambrensis and Went had it wrong.

Next we go to Holland where in the 20th Century a discussion took place whether the catfish was an indigenous species that should be protected or whether it was introduced in the late medieval period by monks. It was only in 1979 that fish remains from a number of prehistoric settlements were identified. It appeared that catfish were present in The Netherlands some 4000 years BC. The poor monk who allegedly wobbled his way with laden bucket to the Dutch waterside was innocent…

Closer to home we arrive in England where the tench has been regarded as an introduced species. Tench is a warm water fish, which could not have survived the ice-age, allegedly. Recent excavations in Suffolk carried out by the Time Team found not only pike but also tench remains. They were some 400,000 years old! Tench may now be regarded as native over there.

Our trip around Europe brings us home again and even here we can serve you a prefect example of how theories are only theories. The rudd is often classified as an introduced fish species to Irish waters for reasons similar to the English tench. Until rudd remains popped up in excavations carried out in Portbraddan Cave in Co. Antrim. This find dates from the first half of the 20th Century and puts the presence of rudd in Ireland back to the Iron Age.

We thought it was important to quote these different examples. If only to warn the readers not to pass out if tomorrow pike remains of a couple of thousand years old are found in Ireland. Stranger things have happened…

Some conclusions:
Several conclusions can be drawn taking into account the pike's turbulent recent history in Ireland. The first one should be that there is much more work to be done and many more references to be looked into. Numerous people in libraries and universities have told us that there is much more interesting information "out there".

Archaeologists have hardly begun looking into the possible presence of fish remains in excavation sites. Understandably, human artifacts and tidal settlements have always carried the prime interest. Having said that it is very encouraging to see that Aidan O'Sullivan who heads the archaeological Discovery Programme takes a great interest in Lake Settlement. Hopefully they'll think of us when they find a few fish bones!

Derived from this first conclusion we must focus on the Irish Fisheries and the work they have carried out so far in this context. During this series on the history of pike in Ireland and its alleged introduction we have proven clearly on numerous occasions that there is something wrong with the introduction theory. It is not sure at all that pike are introduced and numerous references on which they have built this theory are doubtful, incomplete and even wrong.

This leads to our main conclusion. In one year's research we have found more about the pike's history than the Irish Fisheries did in half a century. Whilst we are surely very dedicated in what we are doing, we are not scientists and do not have for example regular access to National Libraries and Museums. Everything had to happen in our spare time and living in two different countries surely didn't make it easier for us. The Fisheries have their own team of scientists, even their own Research Department. If they didn't manage to find in 50 years what we found in one year then there is something wrong with their ability to carry out their job. If they did know all this but never told anyone and kept building their policies on the introduction theory then there is surely reason for drastic change. It is our opinion however that hardly anyone ever looked for the truth and the few people who did always looked hoping to find nothing. The case against the pike should be dropped on the grounds of lack of evidence. There should be an official review on the pike's history and the cessation of all discriminatory measures against pike until such review is complete. We cannot stress enough the extreme importance of an Independent team of scientists to carry out such research. For far too long, the Irish Fisheries have played witness, judge and jury on their own actions. This cannot be tolerated any longer. More than this an official inquiry into this (and other) mishaps in the Irish Fisheries is needed. We hear that an official inquiry is on the agenda in the North, not the least thanks to Angling Ireland Editor Frank Quigley. Is he up for another battle here down south? We see a very important role here for the angling clubs in Ireland. It is refreshing to see the rapid development of the Irish Pike Society and our hopes lie with them.

Acknowledgement
Summing up a list of all the people who helped us in compiling these articles would force us to write another article! This would lead us too far so everyone who knows he or she contributed is kindly thanked. We wish however to make two exceptions. First of all we would like to thank the Editor of Angling Ireland Frank Quigley who gave us space to show our findings. Anyone reading this should realize how lucky Ireland is, in having a fishing magazine that is not bowing to influential groups like advertisers, clubs or organizations regarding the contents of its articles.

Secondly we would like to mention and thank Nicholas Williams, Head Lecturer of The Irish Department, University College Dublin. He never tired of our requests for information, explanation and translation. He led us to numerous references and other people and without him this story would more than likely never have been written. We would like to finish by quoting Mr. Williams directly: "More research would, I am sure, yield more evidence that the pike is indigenous."…

Part 5 : An Appendix (on environmental issues)

Whilst the study of the history of pike in Ireland is a matter of facts, the subsequent management of pike stocks is all about people, policies and politics.

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 practices. 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 practices 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 being 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 enough 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,…

Written by Frank Barbé and Shane Garrett



8.2 LIST OF IRISH PIKE ANGLING CLUBS

8.3 FLY FISHING FOR PIKE

Fly-fishing for Pike (by John Rooney).

This year in particular I have witnessed a huge increase in pike anglers indulging in a spot of fly-fishing for pike, and judging by the volume of mail received there are quite a number of budding fly anglers in the wings willing to participate in the fastest growing sport to hit Irish pike angling in years, fly fishing for pike. One only has to take a look inside any tackle shop in the country to see the evidence of the popularity that this method has generated, rows of brightly coloured Pike flies that are selling like hot cakes. Fly-fishing for Pike is here to stay.

Allow me to give you an insight into the Irish pike fly angling scene, also the tackle and the all-important flies. The majority of pike flies on the market today are constructed from manmade fibres, and in my book just don't imitate a wounded or dying fish as natural fibres would do. So, why do pike go crazy for these flies? Pike as we all know are fierce predators. They are top of the food chain and if we the angler can produce a fly that not only looks realistic but will also entice the pike to demonstrate its predatory instincts on command, then my friends we are close to perfecting this deadly method of pike angling.

As mentioned earlier most flies are constructed from manmade fibres, which in my book just don't come close to the natural movement which can be generated from materials such as buck tails, sheep hair, or the very versatile rabbit strips. Over the last year I have sampled most of the flies available on the market and believe me there is some serious amount of rubbish to con the novice pike fly angler, that's apart from one company that have just released a collection of pike flies that already taken double figured for us. Due to this lack of good quality flies I took a leaf from one of the most respected pike anglers in Europe, whom I might add, kindly sent me over a collection of his very own hand tied pike flies and judging by the very high standards that Ad Swier sets, one can but only try to achieve such heights. I might also add that Mr Swier is a regular visitor to our shore, if its not making fly fishing videos in Ireland for the over seas market, he is also part taking in our mutual passion.

While tying your own flies will require an initial layout, believe me in no time you will be reaping your just rewards. Let's take a closer look at the basic items required to begin fly tying. A good quality vice is essential, preferably one with a rotating head, for this makes life easier when you require access to the undercarriage of the fly. A selection of different whipping threads plus bobbin should be easily obtained from your local dealer. I found that materials such as Buck Tail and Rabbit hide are quiet manageable for the novice fly tier to begin with, and any fly tying kit should never be without a supply of Marabou, in all different colours, a very versatile material that will enhance any fly, and bring to-life even the dourest of flies. Hook selection is always very difficult, too large a hook and we un-necessarily inflict damage to the mouth of our quarry, too small a hook and we run the risk of non-hooking, and after all we are here to catch pike, so how do we confront this problem.

I believe I have solved the problem regarding hook selection. When dressing a fly I use as small a hook as possible, this is dictated by the size of the fly I am tying. To help over come the problem associated with using a small single hook, I have incorporated a size six barb less treble that acts as a fly, and is attached to the small single prior to tying with the aid of Optima Kevlar Steel Pike leader available from Anglers World.

The fly that I have selected for this piece is called the Double D, named after the angler who has really made this fly his own. The body of this fly is constructed mainly from Buck Tail, with just a hint of Mirror Flash Red, which acts more as an attracter. As with all my fly tying I start on the vice with a barb less single hook, a bed of whipping thread is applied to the shank of the hook and it's at this stage that I am now ready to attach the flying treble. A length of Kevlar Pike leader of around ten inches is fixed to the eye of the single hook, with the remainder of the leader brought down the shank of the single hook and held in place with a coat of Araldite, this is then allowed to dry. Now I can attach the flying treble to the pike leader that should be protruding from the rear of the single hook. I allow the treble at least a two-inch gap from the end of the single, as this allows me to overlap the treble with Buck Tail; in turn this should keep the treble in line with the shank of the single.

Now we are ready to dress the body of the fly. The first dressing of Buck Tail is whipped to the shank just above the bend of the hook, as mentioned earlier this first layer of Buck Tail should cover the flying treble by at least two inches, this exercise helps eliminate the treble fouling up on the main body of the fly. Also at this stage I would tie in a few strands of Mirror Flask. Apply a coat of varnish and allow to dry. Now we can commence to build the body of the fly in sections. As with the first lay of Buck Tail, slowly build up the body by whipping in layers of Buck as you proceed along the shank of the hook towards the eye of the hook, stopping short of the eye to allow for the build up of the fly head, always remember to apply a coat of varnish as you whip. The head of any fly should look as realistic as possible and the more detail we pay to the head section the greater chance we have of producing the winning fly.

To construct the fly head all we need to do is slowly build up a round type shape with the aid of the bobbin and tread, time spent on the head will be evident in the final product. Once we have the required head shape, we can now apply a coat of Araldite and allow setting, as yet I have not had one single fly head come UN-done. Monitor the drying of the head and just as the Araldite comes to the sticky stage, we can now attach the all important eyes, a small blob of Araldite on each eye will form a secure base, making sure to position the eyes at the correct height, now we allow to dry.

I am told that in order to name a fly, that one must first catch a fish on the fly and only then can we name the fly. Well as you can see, my fly has a name and please allows me to tell you the story behind the naming of this fly.

One evening late July of this year I received a call from Dublin Pike angler Dave Brunton enquiring if one would be interested in an evening session after work, I must say that I am not known for turning down such offers once pike angling is concerned, so we found ourselves heading north bound with boat in tow. Conditions on the day were not favourable, no wind, bright sunshine, but hey! we were angling. What was evident was the activity on the surface, large shoals of Perch fry were feeding freely on the insect life, so floating lines and surface flies were the order of the day. Large numbers of Jacks were also taking full advantage of this feeding spell; in turn we too had great sport on the surface flies. While on one of our drifts we covered a huge weed bed that protruded some thirty yards from the bank. Anchors were dropped and a change of fly was called for.

I opted for a fly that had produced large pike for me in the past, this fly fishes just below the surface and is called the Castle Deceiver, named after the lake that has a huge population of pike that made short work of this fly, fourteen pike in one session to this fly.

We covered the weed bed from a distance of ten yards, landing the flies just on the bed and allowing the fly to drop off the edge of the weed bed creating a slight disturbance as it hits the water. Dave was fishing to a feeding pike that seemed to be a decent fish, if only we knew what was about to follow. The fly that Dave was using had being tied just two days earlier and was on its maiden voyage. The fly in question measures some six inches in length and is a real brute of a fly to cast. In what can only be described as a violent commotion on the surface roughly in the area that Dave had cast his fly, brought me in the direction to where the fly was last seen. A large pike had taken offence to the presence of this intruder entering its territory.

Some ten minutes had passed without a sighting of the fish, a sure sign of a decent fish. By this stage Daves arm was aching and with this being his first pike on the fly found it hard going, but was coping. All our thoughts and suggestions were soon put to bed when the fish took to the skies, a huge beast of a pike was putting Dave and his tackle under some fierce pressure. Only when the pike was ready could we attempt to land him. A truly magnificent creature lay in the nets and I had a sneaky feeling that Dave had just taken his first thirty, or it was very close to that weight. She kicked like hell and we removed her from the net and lay her on the carpet on the floor of the boat. It was at this stage I think we both knew that this creature that lay in front of us was in deed in excess of thirty pound, of that I had no doubt.

With the care and respect that these fish deserve we were now ready to transfer the fish to the weigh sling. Dave's eyes were glued to the face of the scales; we opted to weight the fish on the bank to obtain the correct reading on the scales. 30lb 4oz of pike was now Dave's reward and I must say that the sight of such a creature brought home to me the reason why I have so much respect towards these fish. A great achievement to land a fish of a life time, also an achievement matched by few, I offered my hand to Dave and I shared in the wonderful catch, I took great pleasure in witnessing Dave catching this pike on one of my flies.

We spent time on the bank supporting the pike back to full strength, only when we felt that this fish was ready for release did we allow her to swim free and what a way to make a break for freedom, a violent shake of her enormous tail and she disappeared into the depth of her watery domain. We watched for a while to ensure she had made a full recovery from the fight, convinced that she had returned in good health we enjoyed a chat and went through the fight step by step, as all anglers do. Even after all these years and the countless number of large pike that we have landed I still get as excited today as I did when I caught my first pike all those years ago, I hold a passion for pike angling.

As mentioned earlier I am now of the opinion that this method of pike angling has really taken but not only off in Ireland. Some months ago I received a call from a guy who was on Holiday in Ireland and had seen a piece I done on this method of pike angling, and was to say the least keen to spent some time with me on an Irish water in search of Pike on the fly. I never miss an opportunity to promote our fasting growing sport, so this guy accompanied me on a number of pike trips in search of his first Irish Pike, our visiting friend took Pike on the fly, also on all the other known methods. Next year I look forward to his return.

To conclude, I am encouraged at the numbers of Pike anglers now taking up fly rods in pursuit of Esox. What I am really surprised at is the fact that not one tour operator has offered a package that includes fly angling for Pike, but I am sure this will follow in due course.

8.4 RESULTS FROM THE PIKE ANGLER CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT IN NOVEMBER 2001

Returned Irish Consultation Forms

Respondents
Completed forms were received from the following 28 counties: -
Antrim, Armagh, Carlow, Cavan, Clare, Cork, Down, Dublin, Fermanagh, Galway, Kerry, Kildare, Kilkenny, Laois, Leitrim, Limerick, Longford, Louth, Mayo, Meath, Monaghan, Roscommon, Sligo, Tipperary, Tyrone, Westmeath, Wexford, Wicklow,
The majority of respondents were male and were between the age of 18 and 40.

1) What are the main waters you fish and how would you describe the PIKE stocks there:

· The list of lakes and rivers submitted was exhaustive covering every Pike water in the country.
· Overall descriptions of stocks was either, a steady decline, or reduced numbers of large Pike and increase in Jacks / small Pike population.
· Many descriptions of catches of damaged or diseased Pike.
· Numerous reports of algae blooms and pollution.

2) What are your involvement(s) in Pike angling:

94% PIKE angler
48% Other angler
28% Club official
5% Board member
7% General public
14% Angling Tourist business

3) What are your angling affiliation(s):

48% PIKE club
18% Coarse club
29% Trout club
11% Salmon club
5% Sea club
40% IPS member
20% IFPAC affiliated club
16% Other

4) What are your angling related reading habit(s):

12% Read one angling publication per year or more
74% Read one or more publication every month
42% Regularly visit angling web sites /news groups
13% Write angling articles
8% Other

5) How do you prefer to fish for Pike

84% Dead bait
81% Lures
22% Fly
66% Boat
71% Bank
64% River
77% Large Lake /Lough
73% Small Lake
39% Alone
4% Guided
68% With a friend/small group
41% Competitions
10% Other

6) How often do you fish for PIKE in recent seasons e.g. in the last year or two:

0% Never
1% Rarely (yearly)
23% Occasionally (monthly /vac.)
75% Regularly (weekly or more)

7) How often did you fish for PIKE in the past e.g. five or ten years ago:

1% Never
3% Rarely (yearly)
26% Occasionally (monthly /vac.)
68% Regularly (weekly or more)

8) Please estimate the total you spend on Pike angling in an average:

12% Under £250
13% £250 - £500
19% £500 - £1,000
29% £1,000 - £2,500
18% £2,500 - £5,000
6% Over £5,000

9) What is your opinion on the current state of Pike stocks in Ireland:

8% Pike stocks have not changed in your lifetime
90% You now see evidence that Pike stocks are in decline

General comments:
Numerous descriptions of how either, total stock of Pike have been declining at an accelerating rate, or increases in small Pike populations and reductions in Larger Pike on every Irish Pike water - North, East, South and West.

10) Have you witnessed any breach of Pike conservation bye laws:

35% No
62% Yes

General comments:
· Reports of illegal killing of Pike by continental angers (i.e. German, French and
Swiss) on every popular tourist Pike Water. Also continentals using live bait
· Reports of killing of Pike by Trout anglers both on an individual basis and especially
in culling competitions without section 14 exemptions.
· Reports of East European Asylum Seekers / Immigrants killing Pike (and other
Coarse fish).

· And a few comments verbatim:
"Seen Pike killed in large numbers by Germans"
· "German cruisers killing Pike"
· "Illegal lines and nets. Too many Rods"
· "Refugees killing Pike of any size and quantity"
· "Severed Pike Heads at Clones & Ballybay Lakes"
· "Multiple Pike killed during cull months on L.Corrib and Pike offered for sale to restaurants."

11) Have you ever caught or witnessed the capture of a Pike with signs of stress, disease or illness e.g. open sores, lesions, emaciation, fungus or excessive slime with a bad odor:

30% No
69% Yes

General comments:
Reports of large numbers of Pike of all sizes with lesions / sores / growths / fungus / lice on practically every Irish Pike Water.

And a few comments verbatim:

· "Sores and lesions on Pike in L.Ree".
· "Open sores & lesions on L.Mockno / L.Sillan / Ballybay River".
· "Lesions - L.Gowna / Blessington / Shannon".
· "L.Ramor - Pike with red sores, killed and sent for analysis".
· "33 Pike - Plassey, Abbey River - diseased lesions over 2 year period".
· "Killyuaghan Lake, Ballybay - Jan. 2000 caught 14 Jacks all had bleeding sores on
flanks".
· "Ulcers or lesions on most Pike caught at Bagnelstown (R.Barrow) last season".
· "On the R.Lee system at Inchigeelagh grey fungus or slime Parasites. Whitewood
Lake 1999 growths, lesions - L.Allen L.Ramor.

12) Have you had experience in reporting problem(s) such as breaches in bye laws, pollution or diseasesed fish to the central or Regional Fisheries board representatives:

43% Never reported a problem
32% Reported problem(s) and no action was taken
13% Reported problem(s) and satisfactory action was taken
10% Other

General comments:
· Complaints of how incidents are regularly reported with no action taken on practically every Irish Pike Water.
· Examples of why there is no point reporting problems as response are too slow or
non-existent.

And a few comments verbatim:
· "Reported my observations (disease on L.Ree) to Eamonn Cusack (CEO ShRFB) but he dismissed me as being 'alarmist' ".
· "Shannon - pollution, but no follow-up - Fisheries Board.
· "Fisheries Boards in the North West don't care about Pike only Game"
· "No, because by the time someone would come the perpetrator would be gone"
· "ShRFB in Mullingar and was told on both occasions that the culprits could not be found when the ShRFB personnel arrived".

13) What is your opinion on enforcement of PIKE conservation bye laws and penalties:

6% Existing enforcement and penalties are adequate
81% New or improved enforcement resources are required with higher penalties for
breaches
13% Other

General comments:
· Complaints that there is no evidence of any enforcement of Pike conservation bye laws i.e. no prosecutions, no presence of bailiffs on the bank or in the water while illegal Pike killing is going on all the time.
· A number of comments stated that the existing bye laws were sufficient and that enforcement of these bye laws are what is required.

And a few comments verbatim:
· "Current enforcement is a joke and Trout anglers are the main culprits".
· "More bailiffs required".
· "The penalties are O.K. but boards need more resources to properly police & enforce" (by a Board member).
· "Erecting signs on all lakes and rivers in all languages with bye laws and penalties".
· "For Pike conservation to be successful there needs to be a total change in the mindset of the fisheries management".
· "Pike anglers to be made bailiffs to help enforce the laws".
· "They seem to be non-existent as I have never seen anyone on the bank to enforce them in an official capacity in over 25 years angling.
· "Killing Pike should be banned as they are not a popular food fish in Ireland".

14) What is your opinion of the sucess of th PIKE culling and transferring (predator control) activities carried out by most Fisheries Boards (incl. Section 14 exemptions):

2% They have dramatically improved wild Trout stocks and angling
81% They have seriously disrupted the natural freshwater ecosystem with no increase
in wild Trout stocks and marked decline in Pike stocks
14% Other effect(s)

General comments:
· Statements generally to the effect that only increase in fish stocks has been in small or Jack Pike due to the culling of larger Pike who feed on them and these smaller Pike eat most of the prey fish i.e. Roach, Perch, Trout, etc.
· Also comments stating that wild Trout stocks have declined further since the culls began rendering the predator control projects a waste of public money.

And a few comments verbatim:
· "Waste of time and money".
· "Marked increase in Prey fish e.g. Perch and Roach and thereby causing changes in trout feeding habits".
· "Culling leads to more Jack Pike which do more damage".
· "Pike should only be transferred to waters where they are declining".
· "Culling should be banned as larger Pike prefer Jack Pike for food, have observed this on 20-30 occasions".
· "in some areas it could be agreed that the Trout stocks have been improved but this may have actually come about by stream enhancement programs".
· "Pike being killed in competitions on Mullagh Lake by locals. Competitions only started after stocking from L.Sheelin began".
· "Pike have been in Ireland for 300 years or more and we know it".
· "valuable funding which should have been used for tackling pollution and water quality was wasted on these projects".

15) What is your opinion of the continuance of the Pike culling and transferring (predator control) activities carried out by most Fisheries Boards (incl. Section 14 exemptions):

5% The individual Boards should be allowed to continue at their own discretion
82% Culling and transferring of Pike should be banned immediately by order of the
Minister until independent scientific studies can establish what the real value
and long-term effects on freshwater ecosystems are, and a national policy can
be developed
10% Other

General comments:
· On the whole there was outrage that culling and transferring of Pike is still ongoing in face of the failure to improve wild Trout stocks during the TAM predator control projects of 1994-1999.

And a few comments verbatim:
· "Culling to stop".
· "Currently it is just a short term ignorant solution".
· "Pike should not be taken from which they are native to".
· "It is far too easy to gain a Pike moving permit in Northern Ireland".
· "Pike culling dose not control Pike numbers effectively, instead it leads to greater numbers of smaller Pike which in the long term create problems as Jacks will attack huge numbers of prey whereas larger Pike (15lb plus) will feed on single larger prey. I have had more Pike from 13lb plus taking Jacks of 2lb when attempting to land the Jacks".

16) What is your opinion of the State's management of our fresh water resources via the current Central Fisheries Board and seven Regional Fisheries Board arrangements:

1% Existing management structure is satisfactory
16% The existing system of Fisheries Boards could provide adequate management
with increased input from anglers and angling bodies
75% The existing system of Fisheries Boards management requires major re-
structuring to provide greater accountability to the citizens of the State and in-
line with a national freshwater management policy agreed with anglers
9% Other

General comments:
· Overall frustration that Fisheries Boards have made all decisions regarding Pike with no input from REAL Pike anglers while Pike management policies are clearly based on Trout anglers prejudice against Pike.

And a few comments verbatim:
· "Input from clubs in North West may be no good as most clubs are Game".
· "Regions need to be reduced in size to provide more cover power per hectare of water".
· "Management of our inland waters now involves a wide range of interest groups, anglers being only one, it is far from perfect from an anglers viewpoint".
· "There are too many Salmonid members on all boards which contribute to bad (or no) policies on Pike".
· "There should be a means by which anglers could influence the decisions of the Boards. But unless the Boards have the interest and the capacity it is a waste of time trying to change their minds".

17) Do you think that PIKE angling gets a fair share of Irish State angling resources:

5% Yes
85% No

General comments:
· Lot's of examples of how there are many needs in Pike and Coarse angling which have gone without funding i.e. conservation, access, etc. in comparison to the large number of Game projects such as Pike culling, Trout stockings, etc.

And a few comments verbatim:
· "Resources appear to be wholly allocated to Game".
· "Looked on as a second class fish, no spots".
· "Some good Pike lakes and rivers have no access or stands".
· "Salmon and Trout angling receive the majority of funding on the mistaken belief that most angling tourists come to Ireland for those species".
· "Not recognised as a sporting fish and regarded as vermin".
· "Most sponsorship is given to trout stockings".
· "Never heard of waters being stocked with Pike".
· "In my opinion most people do not regard Pike as an asset".
· "Because the Trout venues are poor compared to Coarse venues".
· "During the Tourism Angling Measure (TAM) 1994-1999 less than £2.5 million (14%) was expended in total on Pike / Coarse angling projects".

18) What is your opinion of contentious Pike angling methods:

91% agree
7% disagree
- that wire traces, forceps, unhooking mat, soft mesh landing net and wire cutters should be mandatory equipment when fishing for Pike.48% agree
46% disagree
- that the Pike measurement criteria used in competitions and specimen claims should be changed from weight to length to reduce the time that Pike are out of the water.
81% agree
14% disagree
- that the distance an angler is allowed to be from a rod while it is fished should be limited to prevent deep-hooking.
58% agree
38% disagree
- that a limit should be placed on the size of treble hooks allowed when Pike fishing or hooks with barbs banned.58% agree
38% disagree
- that Pike tubes (Pike keep nets) should be banned. 21% Other
- restrictions or comments.

General comments:
· Many opinions that more restrictions cannot be enforced due to the lack of bailiffs as seen by the poor enforcement of existing laws and that education is the best way to protect Pike from damage

And a few comments verbatim:
· "Kid's or beginners should have experienced anglers with them".
· "Length measurement not satisfactory for specimen claims but O.K. for competitions".
· "Foreign anglers should be especially monitored".
· "Ban on use of gaff's".
· "Education is the key, grants to provide free clubs fish-ins etc. needed".
· "Too many restrictions spoil sport and discourage young anglers and visitors".
· "I also think a weigh sling should be mandatory".
· "A pike tube can be helpful when trying to recover a Pike after a long fight".
· "No more than 2 small or 1 large Pike to be kept in Pike tube / keep sack or plastic barrel / bin during Pike competitions".

19) What is your opinion on proposed changes in PIKE conservation bye laws:

9% agree
79% disagree
- that existing bye laws are adequate and require no changes.
42% agree
38% disagree
- that size of Pike allowed to be killed be changed from 3kg to 60cm.84% agree
10% disagree
- that the exemption allowing the killing of specimen Pike be withdrawn entirely.

30% Other - changes or conservation law(s) are required.

General comments:
27% stated that a total ban on killing of any Pike (i.e. "Catch & Release" only policy) should be enforced even though this option was not included on the form. There were a number of different reasons given such as:
· Bye laws that allowed the killing of any Pike created easy loopholes.
· Most Irish and U.K. anglers don't kill Pike for the table so why allow killing of Pike which only suits Continental anglers.
· Prosecutions could be made on much simpler evidence i.e. certified scales not required.

And a few comments verbatim:
· "A total ban on Pike killing would be easier to monitor".
· "Heavy fines for Hotels and B&B's who supply fish cleaning facilities and / or deep-freezers".
· "No fillets allowed to facilitate law enforcement. Those who want to bring home any species should clean & fillet t home".
· "Protection of other Coarse species i.e. prey fish".
· "Less laws and more pollution controls".
· "That a ban on killing any Pike be introduced for a period to let stocks recover".
· "All visiting anglers must buy a visiting anglers permit / license and in so doing must register where they will fish and other details".

20) What is your opinion on a closed season for PIKE angling:

4% You support a 1 month summer restriction
23% You support a 1 month spring (spawning) restriction
21% You support a 3 month spring (spawning) restriction
4% You support a 3 month summer restriction
34% You are against any restrictions
18% Other

General comments:
· Concerns about the effect on angling tourist business of a closed season.
· Statements that spawning dates vary from water to water and also depend on monthly temperatures and other factors making it difficult to select effective fixed time for closed season.

And a few comments verbatim:
· "A restriction from 1st Mar to 1st May (spawning time) as this is the time of year tourists do most of the damage to Pike stocks".
· "Fish handling is more important than a closed season".
· "The implication of on tourists interests of such a closed season should be closely examined before such restrictions are proposed".
· "I support a 2 month spring restriction (spawning)".
· "Closed season totally unnecessary in Ireland as pregnant hens are hard to catch prior to the spawning act and are generally not pressurised in Irish waters".
· "Pike spawn at different times in different waters so this would be inappropriate".

21) What is your opinion of Pike angling competitions:

36% Clubs and organisations should be left to organise and supervise competitions at
their own discretion.
23% Permits and supervision for competitions should be enforced by the Fisheries
Board at Club's expense.
32% Competitions should be banned immediately until stocks of Pike recover to pre-
defined levels.
14% Other

General comments:
· Opinions lean towards allowing competitions to continue under the control of club's as Fisheries Boards would not be motivated, but with self imposed code of conduct / practice including mandatory equipment requirements for anglers, certificates of competence for clubs, reports on competition, etc.

And a few comments verbatim:
· "Ban's would only drive the sport underground - education & respect for Pike is the ultimate aim".
"Fish get treated badly at competitions".
"Allowed, but under strict code of practice".
· "Club's and organisations could observe controlled areas - no more angler restrictions".
· "Certificates of competency given to club's by Fisheries Boards".
· "Banning competitions would only alienate large sections of Pikers - prizes should be banned".
· "Independent supervision - Fisheries boards a waste of space".
· "Proposed competitions should be reported to relevant Fishery Board to encourage attendance and report on same should be produced by Fisheries Board on Pike welfare for public display".
· "In my opinion of club's a 'Pike competitions means prizes' attitude is present".
· "A well policed and well organised club should be recognised by some sort of certificate etc.".
· "All competitions must be subject to a code of conduct including description of unhooking equipment / nets etc. clearly set out as mandatory equipment that each competitors must possess".
· "Pike competitions may take place where Pike are released straight away".
· "Participants should have a certificate of competence".
· "You will not stop competitions so more control should be in place".

22) What is your opinion on water quality in Irish rivers and lakes:

10% It is not affecting the waters / stocks that I fish
88% I feel that fish stocks are suffering due to poor water quality / pollution

General comments:
· Numerous examples of declining water quality as evidenced by algae blooms and reports of pollution incidents on virtually every Irish Pike water - North, East, South and West.

And a few comments verbatim:

· "Rigid discharge limits for and regular testing of domestic septic systems should be brought into force funded by sever fines for breaches. Grants / assistance should be provided to upgrade older systems unable to comply with new limits".
· "Sugar factory in Carlow a big polluter of R.Barrow".
· "In areas of L.Corrib where increased enrichment is evident fish with massive Lice infestation and bleeding when caught".
· "Algae bloom in East Clare Lakes".
· "L.Gill is totally ruined due to Algae".
· "Heavy Algae bloom on L.Derg every year, still unlimited use of fertiliser".
· "R.Blackwater (Monaghan) very polluted due to farm effluent and factory discharge".
· "Oil on surface of R.Barrow due to huge increase in boat traffic".
· "Descart (Ardee) farmers dumping slurry into Lake".
· "Farmers cleaning farm equipment in Lakes (Cavan area)".
· "L.Bracken is destroyed, even the locals have to drink bottled water".
· "L.Arrow has had a continuos algae bloom since September farms are continuously breaking REPS guidelines in this area. Fisheries Officers are farmers and are oblivious to any problems or it's causes".
· "R.Quoile has sewage running into it".

23) What is your opinion of enforcement of pollution laws and emissions licenses conditions / penalties:

3% Existing enforcement and penalties are adequate
93% New or improved enforcement resources are required with higher penalties for
breaches
8% Other

General comments:
· Numerous demands for more prosecutions with higher fines to cover re-stocking cost and jail sentences.

And a few comments verbatim:
· "If we had tougher penalties we would have less pollution".
· "More EPA personnel required and should work closer with Boards".
"'Set-a-side' for all water catchment".
· "The EPA and Fisheries Boards must adopt a tough stance and no tolerance approach towards pollution, enforcement. Heavy fines and penalties including Jail sentences".
· "Convicted offenders should be made pay the full re-instatement cost of restoring and re-stocking affected body of water to its former state".
· "To fine a perpetrator £1,400 for a silage spillage or overflow instead of insisting that he builds his tanks deeper is ludicrous. The inadequate fines have no effect - £10,000 might wake them up".

24) The Environmental Protection Agency has determined scientifically that the main source of freshwater pollution is from farming activities including run-off from excessive application of fertilizers / manure / slurry particularly in wet weather, as well as farmyard spillages. Do you feel that:

1% Farmers should be left to manage animal waste and fertiliser use themselves
92% The State should impose controls on farming activities which have the potential
of damaging fresh water systems (e.g. pollution license for animal waste and
controlling the purchase of fertilisers based on the usage / size of farms
12% Other

General comments:
· Demands for more controls on farm utilisation of fertiliser, slurry and manure and more focus on sewage discharges, detergents and industrial discharges.

And a few comments verbatim:
· "REPS are introducing such guidelines".
"Fertilisers shouldn't be allowed to be used near lakes or rivers".
"Also Club's and Fisheries Boards should work with farmers to control this problem".
· "State training should be given to farmers to change practices".
· "Compulsory soil testing to avoid unnecessary use of fertilisers".
· "Massive fines because they are polluting our drinking water".
· "Every farm should have a nutrient plan in place".
· "Farmers should get a grant towards pollution protection".
· "Household detergents should be looked at also (Zeolites)".
· "State must appoint inspectors to check all farms regularly. Current state REPS scheme to be made compulsory".
· "Farmers should be named and shamed".
· "Farmers should be made pay for cleaning Lakes and Rivers".
· "The state should make it mandatory for farmers to hav