Document Title Written Question Submission to Pike Review Group Date: 08-Aug-17 Revision: 1.0

Description

Initial Name IPS IFPACIFI Inland Fisheries Ireland P. Byrne D. HamillRR Dr. Robert Rossell (AFBI)DE Dr. Denis Ensing (AFBI)DP Dr. Debbie Pedreschi (Marine Institute)JC Dr. John Curtis (Economic and Social Research Institute)MOG Dr. Martin O Grady (University College Dublin)PG Dr. Paddy Gargan (Inland Fisheries Ireland)KD Dr. Karen Delanty (Inland Fisheries Ireland)PMC Dr. Paul McCloone (Inland Fisheries Ireland)KW Dr. Ken Whelan (Ken Whelan Fisheries Consulting)

The purpose of this document is to seek answers/ clarifications to queries relating to the 2017 Review of Pike Management Policy in Designated Wild Brown Trout Fisheries. The document is structured such that a query or statement is posed and supporting material referenced if applicable. Supporting material that is not directly accessible by Inland Fisheries Ireland has been provided. Some queries may be directed at one or more of the contributors/ attendees that have attended the review group meetings. Each contributor/ attendee has been identified by inital throughout the remainder of this document.

Contributors/ Attendees Authors

No. Statement/ Question Relevant Respondent/s

Item 1 Effect of Seasonal Spatial Segregation on Pike Diet Dr. Martin O'Grady

Item 2 Spatial Segregation of Roach V's Roach Availability to Pike Dr. Martin O'Grady

Item 3 Seasonal Spatial Movement of Pike Dr. Martin O'Grady

Item 4 Trout / Roach Stock Survey Ratio's V's Stomach Content Ratio's Dr. Martin O'Grady

Item 5 Disparity Among Pike Population Dietary Habits Dr. Martin O'Grady

Item 6 Pike Predation on Perch and Cyprinids Dr. Martin O'Grady

Item 7 Seasonal Predation by Pike on Perch Dr. Paddy Gargan

Item 8 Unquantified Predation on Perch and Roach Stocks in Lough Sheelin Dr. Martin O'Grady

Item 9 1996 Lough Corrib Seasonal Dietary Assumptions Dr. Martin O'Grady / Dr. Paddy Gargan

Item 10 Gillnet Propensity to Induce Regurgitation Dr. Karen Delanty

Item 11 Temperature Dependant Food Consumption of Pike Dr. Martin O'Grady / Dr. Paul Mc Cloone

Item 12 Influence of 'Longer' Seasonal Digestive Rates on Pike Diet Dr. Martin O'Grady / Dr. Paul Mc Cloone

Item 13 Influence of 'Shorter' Seasonal Digestive Rates on Pike Diet Dr. Martin O'Grady / Dr. Paul Mc Cloone

Item 14 Reference to Toner (1959) Dr. Martin O'Grady / Dr. Karen Delanty

Item 15 Reference to Healy (1956) Dr. Martin O'Grady / Dr. Karen Delanty

Item 16 Relevance of the 1978 -2006 Lough Sheelin Pike Diet Data Set to Peer Review Dr. Martin O'Grady / Dr. Karen Delanty

Item 17 Sex-Related Food Consumption of Male & Female Pike Dr. Paul Mc Cloone

Item 18 Wild Vs Farmed Trout in Pike Dietary Studies Dr. Martin O'Grady

Item 19 Lough Corrib & Lough Sheelin - Pike Dietary Research Dr. Martin O'Grady

No. Statement/ Question Relevant Respondent/s

Item 1 Definition of "Quality Pike Nursery Areas" Dr. Martin O'Grady / Dr. Karen Delanty

Item 2 Application of Precedent Dr. Martin O'Grady / Dr. Karen Delanty

Item 3 Pike Population Recruitment Dr. Karen Delanty

Pike Diet

A list of relevant questions has been compiled in recognition of the decision taken at the pike policy review meeting on 29th May to allow additional written questions to be submitted where time was limited to appropriately question presenters, or where answers given were incomplete.

We trust that the responses will greatly improve the knowledge and understanding of the pike review group, so that the discussion and policy formation stage may be fully informed.

2017 Pike Policy Review - Investigative and Discovery Phase

The following 7no. topics and the questions related to each topic are based upon those presentations made to date during the pike policy review meetings and also the relevant scientific reports and papers underpinning the views of the presenters. In the interest of gathering appropriate scientific information relevant to this investigative and discovery phase, each question has been assigned to a relevant presenter.

Pike Spawning

No. Statement/ Question Relevant Respondent/s

Item 1 Wild Trout CPUE Verification Dr. Karen Delanty

Item 2 An Improving Situation on Some Designated Wild Brown Trout Fisheries Dr. Karen Delanty

Item 3 Validity of CPUE Comparison Dr. Martin O'Grady / Dr. Karen Delanty

Item 4 Definition of a Quality Brown Trout Fishery Dr. Karen DelantyItem 5 Relationship between trout CPUE values and quality brown trout angling Dr. Karen Delanty

Item 6 Deterioration of Wild Brown Trout Stocks on Lough Corrib over the past 100 years Dr. Martin O'Grady

Item 7 Effect of Angler Cropping on Wild Brown Trout Populations Dr. Martin O'Grady

Item 8 Reduction in Trout Densities Despite Aggressive Pike Control Operations Dr. Martin O'Grady

Item 9 Stock Surveys and Fish Modelling Dr. Karen Delanty

No. Statement/ Question Relevant Respondent/s

Item 1 Wild Trout CPUE Verification Dr. Paddy Gargan / Dr. Karen Delanty

Item 2 Impact of Perch and Roach on Brown Trout Dr. Martin O'Grady

Item 3 Potential of Waters to be less Suited to Trout than Pike Dr. Martin O'Grady

No. Statement/ Question Relevant Respondent/s

Item 1 Annual Stock Management Plan Inland Fisheries Ireland

Item 2 Environmental Impacts of Stock Management Inland Fisheries Ireland

Item 3 Public Health and Safety Inland Fisheries Ireland

Item 4 Scientific Justification Inland Fisheries Ireland

No. Statement/ Question Relevant Respondent/s

Item 1 ESRI Survey Dr. John Curtis

Item 2 Political Influence Dr. John Curtis / Inland Fisheries Ireland

No. Statement/ Question Relevant Respondent/s

Item 1 Economics Inland Fisheries Ireland

Item 2 Redirection of Pike Management Resources Inland Fisheries Ireland

No. Appendices:

1 Lough Sheelin CPUE Table

2 Lough Corrib Trout Cpue's & Notable Events

3 Toner (1959) - Salmon and Trout Magazine

4 FOI 145/08/C - Table 1 & Table 2

5 O'Grady et al. (1996), Table 14

6 Market Planning - Angling Profile 1990's

7 NARA Notification to Member Clubs about Participation in ESRI Angler Survey

Economics

ESRI Survey of Angler Preferences for the Management of Pike in Designated Wild Brown Trout Fisheries

Pike Management

Species Effect

Trout Population Density

To No. Statement/ Question Relevant Reference Contributor / Attendee Response

Item 1

CommentPage 10 of Dr. O'Grady's presentation to the review group suggests that all species are available equally to pike as fodder at all times. It is known however that seasonal movements of prey take place due to a combination of factors e.g. feeding opportunities, physical conditions, absence of cover etc.

MOG

Q1AHave IFI carried out any research into the seasonal migration and spatial segregation of pike, roach, perch and trout, on any fishery, and in particular Lough Sheelin?

MOG

Q1B How does the seasonal migration and spatial segregation of roach, perch and trout influence pike predation on each species?

Item 2

MOG

Q2AWhy does O'Grady & Delanty (2008), Table 1 infer that the ratio of roach in the stock to roach in pike stomachs should be equal, considering Dr. O'Grady's comment that pelagic roach are not available to pike as a food source?

MOG

Q2BWhat determines the size of the roach stock and year classes that feed pelagically on a seasonal basis on Lough Sheelin and what scientific evidence is available to show historical seasonal or annual variation?

MOG

Q2CWhat percentage of roach or year classes in Lough Sheelin typically feed pelagically as opposed to the sub littoral zone during the period of the spring annual surveys?

MOG

Q2D

With regard to the tables presented on page 10 of Dr. O'Grady's presentation, has the ratios of pelagic, benthic and sub littoral zone predation on roach during the specific period of the spring annual surveys on Lough Sheelin, been considered in the context of roach availability to pike as fodder at this time of year and what has this shown?

Item 3

MOGQ3A Do pike feed in benthic (deep water) and pelagic zones and

what year classes is this relevant to?

MOG

Q3B Dr. Ken Whelan in his presentation to the review group stated that 15 years of echo sounding have shown interesting results such as pike being found in benthic zones accompanying large roach and hybrid shoals. At what time of year do pike feed in the benthic (deep water) and pelagic zones on Lough Sheelin and what pike year classes is this relevant to?

MOG

Q3C Has the changing ecology affected trout / pike interactions e.g. are predators such as pike and ferox now hunting more in deep water zones and targeting abundant shoal fish?

PIKE DIET

Effect of Seasonal Spatial Segregation on Pike Diet

Ref:Dr. Martin O'Grady's presentation to the pike review group 8th May 2017 - Page 10);

Gargan & O'Grady (1992) in their study of feeding relationships in L. Sheelin 1982-1984 discuss the seasonal movement of roach, perch and trout related to their food source.

King and Kirrane (1994) stated that large perch stocks found in deep water and few in shallow water represented the norm for this time of year.

Craig (1996) commented that the “consumption of prey by pike is not seasonally constant, but varies on a monthly or possibly on a more frequent basis due to predator opportunities, prey abundances and vulnerabilities and physical conditions”

Spatial Segregation of Roach V's Roach Availability to Pike

Ref: Dr. Martin O'Grady's presentation to the pike review group 8th May 2017 - Dr. O'Grady stated in conclusion, that pike do not feed pelagically and so the large roach populations operating pelagically are not available to pike as fodder. It was suggested that pike hunt mainly in shallow sub littoral zones and as such feed on trout as trout mainly inhabit the sub littoral zone. When questioned on this and on why roach appear in pike diet at all if this is the case, Dr. O'Grady stated that some roach would operate in the littoral zone.

Ref: O'Grady & Delanty (2008), Table 1;

Seasonal Spatial Movement of Pike

Ref: Dr. Martin O'Grady's presentation to the pike review group 8th May 2017 and comments related to the pelagic feeding of pike;

Ref: Dr. Ken Whelan's presentation to the pike review group 29th May 2017;

Ref: IFPAC / IPS angling observations.

Item 4

Comment The table reproduced from O'Grady & Delanty, (2008) and presented on Page 10 of Dr. O'Grady's presentation seeks to use data from 12 individual years to advise the reader that it is a scientific fact that pike prefer to prey on brown trout by comparing the ratio of roach and trout in the population to the ratio of roach and trout in pike stomachs. It should be noted that this data is gathered during a time of year that generally coincides with pike spawning.

MOG

Q4A What scientific peer reviewed papers are used to justify that roach / trout ratio predation will match population abundance ratio?

MOG

Q4B What is the basis for applying this justification during spring when pike are known by many scientific researchers to be subject to a spawning fast at this time and as such, what are the likely implications for an individual pike feeding strategy at this time?

MOG

Q4C Is it scientifically possible that dead trout kelts could have contributed in part or full to the trout recorded as eaten by pike in each of the 12 spring surveys, and if not, why is this dismissed?

MOG

Q4D Piscivorous pike that preyed on perch have been omitted from Table 1 of O' Grady & Delanty (2008) and also the presentation. What is the implication for the accuracy of population modelling where the impact of pike on e.g. various year classes of the perch population is omitted from scientific reports?

Item 5

Comment Pedreschi et al. (2014) concluded that pike exhibit individual specialisation not population specialisation. The research included Lough's Carra and Sheelin.

MOG Q5A Is it accepted that the conclusion of Pedreschi et al. (2014)

represents the facts with regard to pike diet on waters where pike and trout co-exist?

MOG

Q5B In the context of pike diet on waters where pike and trout co-exist with other species, what peer reviewed scientific evidence does IFI have that refutes the Pedreschi et al. (2014) statement?

Item 6

Comment Dr. Martin O'Grady's presentation to the pike review group 8th May 2017 - (Page 13) states that IFI have no detailed research on coarse fish predation by pike in the 'designated fisheries'. This is significant as it indicates that the biology of Irish pike is poorly studied or understood in this regard, spanning a period of 60 years. The second comment that pike are known not to depress 'quality' coarse fish stocks on other waters suggests that IFI are at least aware that pike in fact do not render fish stocks extinct.

MOG

Q6A Does Dr. O'Grady accept that to present an opinion on the impact of pike in designated fisheries, particularly one that may feed into population modelling, one must first have conducted the detailed research necessary?

MOGQ6B What is the impact of this lack of research on current

population modelling?

Trout / Roach Stock Survey Ratio's V's Stomach Content Ratio's

Ref: Dr. Martin O'Grady's presentation to the pike review group 8th May 2017 - Page 10;

IFPAC / IPS Comment: It appears questionable to conclude that ratios of population to stomachs should be similar e.g. in 1986, for the 4 wild trout found in pike stomachs, the remaining pike stomachs would ideally have contained 141 roach!

It is known that kelts returning from spawning in the midland lakes do so up to and including March, which coincides with the timing of the spring surveys. There is therefore a level of natural trout kelt mortality that provides opportunist food for pike, shrimp etc. See O'Grady et al. (2008), Brown Trout in Ireland, Chapter 2.

Disparity Among Pike Population Dietary Habits

Pedreschi et al. (2014) - Pedreschi, D., Mariani, S., Caffrey, J., O'Grady, M., Voigt, C. & Kelly-Quinn, M. (2014). The Diet of Pike in Irish Watercourses. Layman's Report, Inland Fisheries Ireland.

Pike Predation on Perch and Cyprinids

Ref: Dr. Martin O'Grady's presentation to the pike review group 8th May 2017 - (Page 13);

Item 7

Comment Table 2b of Dr. P. Gargans presentation to the review group set out clearly the number of pike stomachs containing a particular food item over a time period from Feb '82 to Mar '84. Regarding the 8 months from Jan '83 to Mar '84, the same data set was used to compile Table 14 of O'Grady et al. (1996). Table 14 is reproduced in 'Appendix 5'. An examination of Table 14 and Table 2b shows that with regard to perch, only perch >1 year old were included on Table 14 (1996). Perch fry were excluded. An alternative Table 14 is also included in 'Appendix 5' for comparison to include perch fry as clearly these were preyed upon by piscivorous pike.

PGQ7A Why were perch fry feeding piscivorous pike excluded from

Table 14 of O'Grady et al. (1996), Appendix 5?

PGQ7B What are the implications of excluding this perch fry

predation from the diet of pike with regard to population modelling?

PG

Q7C The alternative Table 14 in 'Appendix 5', revised to include pike stomachs containing perch fry, under the 'perch' heading, indicates that pike, during the study period, were feeding extensively on perch, what is the impact of this predation on the food competition evidenced between perch and trout as stated in Gargan, P.G. & O'Grady, M.F., (1992)?

Item 8

CommentA summary report for Lough Sheelin 2000-2006 produced by Dr. Martin O'Grady and O'Grady & Delanty, (2008), Section 4.3.1.1: commented that pike stocks expand rapidly in response to additional food supplies and that with regard to L. Sheelin, "this population of pike subsequently declined markedly when this large food supply (mostly roach and some perch) was no longer available".

MOG

Q8A At what times of the year on Lough Sheelin were the expanding pike population feeding specifically on roach and where in the water body?

MOG

Q8B At what times of the year on Lough Sheelin were the expanding pike population feeding specifically on perch and where in the water body?

MOG

Q8C What scientific evidence can you provide to show what year classes of pike were expanding due to the additional roach and perch fodder?

MOG

Q8D For both male and female pike, what percentage of annual food intake did the average piscivorous pike of length 50cm and 80cm on Lough Sheelin in 1986 and 2006 gain from roach and perch predation in those respective years?

MOGQ8E How was the percentage of food intake in Q8D calculated

and is the result supported by peer reviewed research?

MOG

Q8F Considering the number of fish of size suitable for capture in the survey nets on Lough Sheelin in 1986 & 2006, what is the estimated biomass of the populations of pike; trout; perch and roach captured in each of those years?

MOGQ8G What is the estimated biomass of trout; perch and roach

eaten by piscivorous pike during the years highlighted in Q8F?

Seasonal Predation by Pike on Perch

Ref: Dr. Paddy Gargan's presentation to the pike review group 29th May 2017 - (Table 2b);

O’Grady, M.F., Gargan, P., Byrne, C., Igoe, F., O’ Neill, J. (1996). A Fish Stock Survey Report for Loughs Corrib, Mask and Carra and Future Management Options for the Fishery Resource. Central Fisheries Board, Internal Report, 3rd July, 1996.

Gargan, P.G. & O'Grady, M.F., (1992)

Ref:Appendix 5

Unquantified Predation on Perch and Roach Stocks in Lough Sheelin

Ref: Dr. Martin O'Grady's presentation to the pike review group 8th May 2017 - (Page 10); Ref: Dr. Martin O'Grady, Lough Sheelin summary report 2000-2006;

Ref: O'Grady & Delanty, 2008, Section 4.3.1.1:

IFPAC / IPS Comment: It is suggested that if the same sampling regime from past studies (i.e. SCA at a specific period in the pikes annual life cycle) was applied during possibly May - June, the studies would have concluded that cyprinids and perch were the preferred food item.

Of considerable importance is that there is evidence to suggest that pike daily ration during May / June can approach 35 times that of March - Ref: Diana (1979) – Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (1988). Synopsis of Biological Data on the Northern Pike:Esox Lucius.

Item 9

Comment The presentation to the review group by Dr. O'Grady included data on pike stocks for Lough Corrib 1996 and again in 2012, after a period of 16 years of pike management. O'Grady et al. (1996) was the basis for the pike management that resulted in the reduction in pike stocks in 2012. This report is presented as concrete evidence of pike predation on trout in O’Grady, M.F. & K. Delanty. (2008). Of note, is that O'Grady et al. (1996) recommended that a seasonal study be conducted into the diet of pike on Lough Corrib to evaluate the calculation in O'Grady et al. (1996) that pike ate 225,000 or 118 tonne of trout in 1995. Freedom of Information has confirmed that the seasonal study was not carried out.

MOG / PG

Q9A Why has IFI continued to use the 1995 pike dietary assumptions without completing the recommended scientific evaluation?

MOG / PG

Q9B On what scientific basis and precedent is the 1995 pike dietary projection still accepted in the most recent report of O'Grady & Delanty (2008)?

MOG / PG

Q9C O'Grady et al. (1996) Table 12, showed the ratio of biomass between pike and fodder fish in the 1996 Lough Corrib survey as 1kg pike per 0.6 kg of fodder. In addition a pike biomass of 79,321kg in 1996 was said to have eaten 140,866kg of food i.e. ratio of 1:1.8. What is the scientific explanation for recorded relationship between pike biomass and fodder biomass in this instance, that explains why the available fodder was not reduced to zero within approx. 4 months?

MOG / PG

Q9D Why were pike stocks in the 1996 survey captured far in excess of their representative biomass in the fishery?

MOG / PG

Q9E What was the actual ratio of pike biomass to fodder biomass within Lough Corrib in 1996?

Item 10

Comment Many researchers have linked gillnet caught pike to regurgitation of food incl. Healy (1956) and more recently Delanty et al. (2016) on a stock survey of Lough Ree. IFPAC/IPS have examined this anomaly and contend that as gillnets have been the primary capture method for stomach sampling up until recently, that gillnet results are flawed and therefore inaccurate.

KDQ10A What % of pike typically regurgitate their food each spring

in the Lough Sheelin surveys?

KDQ10B What % of pike typically have genuine empty stomachs in

spring?

KD

Q10C Have IFI scientifically considered any implication that empty stomachs + regurgitation might have in the context of the validity of previous stomach sampling studies and what has this examination shown?

Item 11

Comment Craig (1996) examines the relationship between temperature, metabolic rate and maximum ration consumption of pike to produce a bioenergetics model for pike.

MOG / PMcL

Q11A What research has been undertaken to predict the ration requirements of pike on a seasonal basis, based upon water temperature?

MOG / PMcL

Q11B If no research has been undertaken, what is your comment on this aspect of pike biology and its implication for influencing seasonal dietary responses in pike?

MOG / PMcL

Q11CIf not researched to date, why is this so?

1996 Lough Corrib Seasonal Dietary Assumptions

Ref: Dr. Martin O'Grady's presentation to the pike review group 8th May 2017 - (Page 16);

O'Grady et al. (1996), A Fish Stock Survey Report for Loughs Corrib, Mask and Carra and Future Management Options for the Fishery Resource. Central Fisheries Board, Internal Report, 3rd July, 1996.

O’Grady, M.F. & K. Delanty. (2008), The Ecology, Biology and Management of Pike in Irish Waters with Particular reference to Wild Brown Trout Lake Fisheries. Central Fisheries Board Internal Position Paper, 52pp.

Gillnet Propensity to Induce Regurgitation

Ref: Healy, A. (1956). Pike (Esox lucius L.) in three Irish lakes. Scient. Proc. R. Dubl. Soc. 27, 51-63.;

Ref: Delanty et al. (2016): Ref: IFPAC/IPS Pike Submission Document (See Section 6.2.5.2. P37)

Temperature Dependant Food Consumption of Pike

Ref: John. F. Craig, (1996), Pike Biology and Exploitation - Ref: Energetics, J. S. Diana.

Item 12

Comment

In relation to actual numbers of trout consumed according to Diana (Ref 1b, Diana, 1979). At temperatures of 6 degC or lower the pikes digestive rate is severely lengthened e.g. between 22 and 26 days. The inference here is that if a pike had consumed a trout that was subsequently detected in SCA then it is possible that the trout had been there for weeks rather than days due to the lengthened digestive rate. The inference by previous studies is that pike with trout in them have been consuming them at a high rate.

MOG / PMcL

Q12A How is the digestive rate of food accounted for in the preferentiality study?

Item 13

Comment (Ref 1b, Diana, 1979): It is suggested that pikes digestive rates from April to August are far shorter than those compared to winter. Diana states that during this period cyprinids and perch constitute the bulk of pike diet. Therefore, pike are consuming and digesting these prey items at a fast rate based on their increased digestive rate.

MOG / PMcL

Q13A What is IFI's comment in relation to this aspect of pike biology and its impact on the pike annual food intake?

MOG / PMcL

Q13B Given that pike are known to prey on spawning cyprinids and perch, particularly during this peak period, what implications does this peak consumption have for population modelling and stock dynamics?

MOG / PMcL

Q13C Frost (1954) found in the study of pike diet in Lake Windermere that perch occurred in the diet of pike at all times but predominated from May to October. What implication has this in terms of pikes faster digestive rate for total annual perch predation in the context of current population modelling in fisheries where pike, trout and perch co-exist?

Item 14

Comment O'Grady & Delanty (2008), Section 2.8, stated that Toner (1959) researched "1710" pike weighing 5.5 ton who apparently ate 55 ton of fish in one year. It is noteworthy that the number of pike referred to by Toner is actually "1170" and important still that we know from Healy (1956) that 80% of Toners 1170 pike had empty stomachs. The estimate made by Toner indicates that the avg. food intake per pike was 1000% of its bodyweight and this estimate was based on just 20% of the pike stomachs containing food.

MOG / KD

Q14A Is it still accepted that Toners 1000% bodyweight estimation of food consumption is scientifically correct?

MOG / KD

Q14B On what peer reviewed and scientific analytical evidence is the 1000% acceptance based?

MOG / KD

Q14C IFPAC/IPS pike submission document, section 6.2.2.2. P23 provides a scientifically based alternative calculation of Toners 1170 pike. When compared to other authors e.g. Rudzianskiene (2001), is it accepted that a calculated consumption of 17.7 ton is scientifically supported, and if not, please provide scientific evidence to the contrary?

Influence of 'Longer' Seasonal Digestive Rates on Pike Diet

Ref: Diana (1979) – Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (1988). Synopsis of Biological Data on the Northern Pike:Esox Lucius.

Influence of 'Shorter' Seasonal Digestive Rates on Pike Diet

Ref: Diana (1979) – Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (1988). Synopsis of Biological Data on the Northern Pike:Esox Lucius;

Ref: Frost, W. E. (1954). The food of pike, Esox lucius L. in Windermere. Journal of Animal Ecology 23, 339-360.

Reference to Toner (1959)

Ref: Dr. Martin O'Grady's presentation to the pike review group 8th May 2017 - (Page 10);

REF: O'Grady & Delanty, 2008, Section 2.8;

Ref: Toner (1959)

Ref: IFPAC/IPS Pike Submission Document uses maintenance and food conversion ratio's by Johnson (1966) to calculate a science based alternative consumption by Toners 1170 pike (See Section 6.2.2.2. P23). Consumption was calculated at 17.7 ton i.e. 31% of Toners estimation.

Ref: Rudzianskiene (2001) calculated a pike food consumption of 243 -266%., which indicates 31% may be high.

Item 15

Comment The presentation to the review group on 8th May (Dr. O'Grady, Page 10) referred to O'Grady & Delanty, (2008) and studies by Healy in L. Glore. Healy (1956) studied pike diet in L. Glore between 1951 & 1955. Healy (1955) discussed the removal of perch from L. Glore during this period and stated that in 1951 an estimation of the adult perch stock in Lough Glore was 13,400 fish, 53% of which was removed during ‘the scheme for the reduction of coarse fishes’ by the end of 1953. Total perch removal from Lough Glore (1950-1954) was 11,504 adults, 407 yearlings, 1,817 perch fry and “innumerable” perch eggs. Healy (1955) also states that during the same operations period that “the main spawning stream at Lough Glore has been stocked with 250,000 fry from Lough Owel”, therefore it is suggested here that the perch removal should be viewed against a backdrop of existing and supplemented trout stocks during the same period.

MOG / KD

Q15A Healy (1955), stated that when coarse fish removal operations commenced on Lough Glore, “large numbers of big trout were netted”. Is it true to say that during 1951 to 1955, an increased predation on trout would be inevitable in Healy's studies given that a considerable portion of the perch population appears to have been artificially reduced over the study period?

MOG / KD

Q15B Dr. O'Grady, Page 15, inferred that pike are leading to the extinction of trout in three catchments. As L. Glore contained "large numbers of big trout" prior to the ‘the scheme for the reduction of coarse fishes', is it true to say that the extinction of trout in L. Glore was not supported by the available evidence and therefore not all fisheries with trout respond the same to predator and competitor species?

MOG / KD

Q15C The biomanipulation of fish stocks in Lough Glore, between the years 1951 and 1955 was not commented on in O’Grady & Delanty (2008). Why was this?

Item 16

MOG / KD

Q16A The presentation to the review group on 8th May referred to O'Grady & Delanty, (2008). Is it considered that the pike diet raw data contained in Appendix 4 FOI 145/08/C and in part reproduced in O'Grady & Delanty (2008) relating to the Lough Sheelin spring surveys is a credible data set and representative of actual longitudinal pike diet spanning the 29 year period 1978 to 2006?

MOG / KD

Q16B Considering the recognised biology of pike with regard to seasonal feeding opportunity; reaction to prey vulnerability; seasonal digestives rates; seasonal migration and individual as opposed to population specialisation, what scientific peer reviewed research duly recognising those aspects of pike biology, supports the contention on Page 10 of Dr. O'Gradys presentation that it is a "proven scientific fact" that pike prefer to prey on brown trout rather than other species?

MOG / KD

Q16C What if any peer reviewed research would support the use of such data to support a trout preference, with particular consideration given to the fact that only 12% of pike examined and found to have contained food, actually contained trout?

MOG / KD

Q16D O'Grady & Delanty, (2008), Fig. 5a shows that 149 stomachs of pike >60cm contained food. Alternatively, FOI 145/08/C shows that only 134 stomachs of pike >60cm contained food. What food was found in the additional 15 stomachs of pike >60cm in Fig. 5a and why was this information withheld from release under the FOI request in 2008?

MOG / KD

Q16E With regard to the comment on page 10 of the presentation, that "it is a proven scientific fact" that pike prefer to prey upon brown trout rather than other species, has the 'statistical significance' of this comment been analysed for the 29 year data set i.e. the data contained in Appendix 4 FOI/145/08/C, with appropriate consideration applied with respect to pike biology; fodder species biology; abiotic factors and the dearth of data for 17 of those 29 years?

Reference to Healy (1956)

Ref: Dr. Martin O'Grady's presentation to the pike review group 8th May 2017 - (Page 10); REF: O'Grady & Delanty, 2008, Section 2.8;

Healy, A. (1955). Report on scheme for the reduction of coarse fishes. Fisheries Branch, Department of Agriculture Dublin Journal, Vol. 51, 1954-1955.

Healy, A. (1956). Pike (Esox lucius L.) in three Irish lakes. Scient. Proc. R. Dubl. Soc. 27, 51-63.

Relevance of the 1978 -2006 Lough Sheelin Pike Diet Data Set to Peer Review

Ref: Dr. Martin O'Grady's presentation to the pike review group 8th May 2017 - (Page 10);

Ref: Pedreschi, D., Mariani, S., Coughlan, J., Voigt, C. C., O'Grady, M., Caffrey, J. and Kelly-Quinn, M. (2015), Trophic flexibility and opportunism in pike Esox lucius. J Fish Biol, 87: 876–894. doi:10.1111/jfb.12755;

Ref: O'Grady & Delanty, (2008); Ref: Craig, J.F. (1996), Pike, biology and exploitation. London, Chapman & Hall, Fish and Fisheries Series 19: 298 pp.;

Ref: FOI 145/08/C - Summary - 1978-2006 (29 year study); 2315 pike captured; 1716 (74%) recorded on data sheets (i.e. 378 containing food; 1,338 recorded as empty of left blank on FOI data sheets (later confirmed under FOI appeal as being linked to regurgitated stomachs); No data available at all for 17 of the 29 years; 46 pike stomachs contained a wild trout i.e. 12% of pike noted as containing food actually contained trout;

Note: Some questions arise with regard to the data presented in O'Grady & Delanty (2008), Figs. 4a, 4b & 5a, compared to that provided under Freedom of Information - Ref: IFPAC/IPS Pike Submission Document (See Section 6.1, Page 19 & Section 6.2.4, Page 29 - 35)

Item 17

Comment Craig (1996) discusses the experiments by Diana (1973) & Diana (1983a) into the daily ration of pike and discusses the finding of monthly feeding differences and sex related feeding differences.

PmcLQ17A Has any research been conducted into the sex related

feeding differences of Irish pike on a monthly basis?

PmcLQ17B What has this research revealed regarding male and female

pike?

Item 18

MOG

Q18A Have IFI studied the predation susceptibility of farmed trout compared to wild trout and their seasonal spatial distribution and availability to pike as fodder and what has this shown?

MOG

Q18BHow were farmed trout identified during SCA on Lough Sheelin during the spring surveys?

Item 19

MOG

Q19A Given the dearth of accurate pike dietary studies carried out on Lough Sheelin and Lough Corrib over many decades, why have these two fisheries been substantially neglected during opportunities for undertaking peer reviewed research into the diet of pike e.g. such as that undertaken by D. Predeschi, and in particular why was this opportunity neglected entirely in respect of Lough Corrib?

Ref: Pike Review (2017) - Lough Sheelin has been artificially maintained as a wild brown trout fishery since 1970 through introductions of trout which at times were in the order of 200,000 annually. IFPAC/IPS suggest that this has resulted in an artificially high pike fodder source which consisted of trout!

Lough Corrib & Lough Sheelin - Pike Dietary Research

Sex-Related Food Consumption of Male & Female Pike

Ref: John. F. Craig, (1996), Pike Biology and Exploitation

Wild Vs Farmed Trout in Pike Dietary Studies

To No. Statement/ Question Relevant Reference Contributor / Attendee Response

Item 1

Comment Dr. Martin O Grady states that there is a natural cap on pike production in lakes. On some larger lakes pike production is limited to a low level due to the percentage of available pike nursery areas to the lake area as a whole. This ratio was used as the basis/ precedent for ceasing pike management on Lough Derravaragh in 1980 and Loughs Ennell and Owel in 1990.

MOG / KDQ1A

Define what is meant by the term "quality" pike nursery area (as it applies to O'Grady & Delanty, 2008, Section 4.3)?

MOG / KD

Q1B Are there different classes of “suitable habitat” (i.e. weed type – emergent or submerged; water depth – shallow to deep) that each reflect the needs, and also controls biomass of young-of-the-year; 1 year olds and older pike up to 54cm?

MOG / KD

Q1C Are different water depths (and therefore possibly weed type divisions) a barrier to different pike sizes and therefore a control of biomass e.g. young-of-the-year; 1 year olds and older pike up to 54cm?

MOG / KDQ1D What depth of water defines a "quality" nursery area, and is

there a water depth, beyond which is unsuitable as a nursery area for pike?

MOG / KDQ1E What is the threshold value (ratio/ percentage) that

determines whether a fisheries capability to produce pike is capped irrespective of increases in fodder abundance?

MOG / KDQ1F What is the impact of ‘wave disturbance’ on shallow pike

nursery areas?

MOG / KD

Q1G What measures were in place to consider the variables discussed in Q1A to Q1F when this precedent was applied to Loughs Derravaragh, Owel and Ennell and in the context of O Grady & Delanty 2008?

Item 2

MOG / KDQ2A In order to arrive at the ratios/ percentages that have been

applied to Loughs Derravaragh, Owel and Ennell how were the pike nursery areas measured?

MOG / KD

Q2B During the measurement of pike nursery areas what percentage of weed cover within the water column was used to determine if the area being measured was deemed suitable pike nursery habitat?

MOG / KDQ2C What are the surface areas in each of the managed lakes of

each respective weed type (emergent or submerged) and what depth bands do these weed types exist in?

MOG / KD

Q2D What is the percentage of suitable pike nursery area on Lough Arrow, Carra, Conn, Cullin, Corrib Upper, Corrib Mid, Corrib Lower, Derravaragh, Ennell, Inchiquin, Owel, Sheelin and Mask?

MOG / KDQ2E Why, following establishment of this precedent on Lough

Derravaragh, did it take 10 years for this precedent to be applied to Loughs Ennell and Owel?

MOG / KD

Q2F Why has this precedent not been applied to Lough Mask given that it has potentially the lowest ratio of suitable pike nursery areas to lake area of all the fisheries where pike management operations are conducted?

MOG / KD

Comment It is notable that this precedent appears to have been arrived at by "accident". Predator control was in place on Lough Derravaragh without the knowledge of a cap on pike production. The roach population exploded and the theory used to explain the lack of expansion of the pike population was the limited availability of pike nursery areas. Therefore pike management was being executed on Lough Derravaragh until 1980 and Lough Owel and Ennell until 1990 without scientific evaluation. This does not inspire confidence currently on fisheries where pike management continues and where such a precedent should have been applied for some time now e.g.. Lough Mask, Upper Lough Corrib etc.

MOG / KDQ2G

Can you please provide comment on this statement?

PIKE SPAWNING

Definition of "Quality Pike Nursery Areas"

Ref: Dr. Martin O'Grady presentation to the pike review group 8th May 2017 - (Page 8)

Ref: O'Grady & Delanty (2008)

Ref: John. F. Craig, (1996), Pike Biology and Exploitation

Application of Precedent

Ref: Dr. Martin O'Grady's presentation to the pike review group 8th May 2017 - (Page 8);

Ref: O'Grady & Delanty (2008)

Item 3

KDQ3A How many eggs per kilogram of body weight do female pike

produce?

KDQ3B What percentage of eggs are successfully fertilised and

become viable?KD Q3C What percentage of eggs produce live pike fry?

KD

Q3D What number or biomass of 0+ and 1+ pike per hectare can be expected to survive to their next year on average each year in typical "quality" pike nursery areas on each of the managed fisheries and in particular Lough Sheelin?

KDQ3E Is there a relationship between the numbers of juvenile pike

(i.e. 0+ and 1+) and the numbers of pike surviving to 3+ years (approx. 50cm)?

KD Q3F What ratio would typically survive to 50cm in length?

KD

Q3G What number and biomass of pike over and below 50cm in length would make up an undisturbed population of pike on Lough Sheelin in 2015, considering nursery areas and results of the 2015 stock surveys for roach, perch and trout?

Pike Population Recruitment

To No. Statement/ Question Relevant Reference Contributor / Attendee Response

Item 1

CommentO'Grady & Delanty (2008), Section 4.3.1.2 (ii) states that "the highest wild trout CPUE value ever recorded in a midland trout lake was 5.0 in Lough Sheelin in 1978". Fig.6 of the same paper states that the wild trout CPUE value for 1979 was 4.9. Appendix 4 FOI/145/08/C Table 1 attached, states the exact number of each species captured during the spring surveys in the two respective years. If one divides the number of each fish species by their respective CPUE taken from Table 2, the answer should yield the number of nets employed each year. The application of this calculation raises questions regarding the accuracy of the CPUEs for wild trout and other species recorded in 1978 & 1979.

KDQ1A How many nets were employed in the spring surveys in

1978 & 1979?

KDQ1B Using the data provided in Appendix 4 FOI/145/08/C Table 1

, what is the correct CPUE for wild trout in each of the years 1978 & 1979?

Comment As per the preceding comment, The Lough Sheelin CPUE Table in Appendix 1 attached indicates that the CPUE of wild trout and other species for the years 1980 to 1999 inclusive may be inaccurate.

KDQ1C How many nets were employed each year in the Lough

Sheelin spring surveys from 1980 to 1999 inclusive?

KDQ1D What are the correct CPUE's for all species including wild

trout for the years 1980 to 1999?Comment It is the assertion of IFPAC / IPS that the wild trout CPUE's

presented in Figure 6 of O'Grady & Delanty (2008) include farmed trout in the calculation for most years between 1978 & 1996.

KDQ1E Why as it appears, have farmed trout been included in wild

trout CPUE's for Lough Sheelin for a substantial number of years between 1978 and 1999?

Item 2

Comment CPUE values for wild trout during the years 2011 to 2015 yielded values in the range of 1.27 & 3.67 respectively. This is despite pike CPUE's during that same period being 4 to 7 times higher than that recorded in 1978. The 2015 wild trout CPUE is comparable to that recorded during a time in 1978 when pike control was given credit for the high wild trout stocks at the time.

KDQ2A Why are wild trout CPUE's comparable with 1978, during

2011 to 2015, when pike CPUE's during the same period are clearly not limiting the rise in wild trout CPUE's?

Comment Loughs Sheelin and Ennell have returned to near optimum trout carrying capacities in recent years. During this time, extensive stream rehabilitation programs and monitoring of ecological conditions in the lakes themselves have taken place. L Ennell has achieved the highest trout CPUE (4.0) for any midland lake without the implementation of pike management and without a large roach population present as fodder for pike. Loch Leven in recent years has shown a return to optimum trout CPUE levels and also supports a large perch population and high quality pike angling. Pike management is not conducted on Loch Leven. It appears that a common denominator leading to the successful rehabilitation of these fisheries as premier wild brown trout fisheries is extensive sub catchment rehabilitation, improvement in lake ecology and constant monitoring and analysis.

KDQ2B What have been the most important factors in the

rehabilitation of wild brown trout stocks and angling on Lough Sheelin?

KDQ2C What have been the most important factors in the

rehabilitation of wild brown trout stocks and angling on Lough Ennell?

KD

Q2D Does IFI agree that extensive stream rehabilitation programs and monitoring of ecological conditions in the lakes themselves, has been the key to improved trout CPUE's?

KDQ2E Can IFI please comment on this statement with particular

emphasis to the position of pike within the rehabilitation of Loughs Sheelin and Ennell?

Trout Population Density

Wild Trout CPUE Verification

See Appendix 4: FOI/145/08/C Table 1 & Table 2 attached. Ref: O'Grady & Delanty (2008), Section 4.3.1.2 (ii) & Figure 6. Ref: Appendix 1 'Lough Sheelin CPUE Table' attached.

An Improving Situation on Some Designated Wild Brown Trout Fisheries

See Appendix 1 'Lough Sheelin CPUE Table' attached for further reference.

Ref: O'Grady & Delanty (2008), Section 3.1.2. Trends evident in Lough Ennell reflect the pattern seen in Lough Derravaragh – i.e. standing crops of pike, over time, have not increased significantly when increased fodder fish became available. In the case of Lough Ennell the increased fodder base for pike was in the form of trout, roach and some perch (Figure 8).

Item 3

MOG / KD

Q3A On what scientific basis is it valid to compare the CPUEs for wild trout in different fisheries where it is known that a wide range of non-pike related environmental and ecological factors are acting to determine the optimum trout carrying capacity of each respective fishery?

Ref: Presentation to Pike Review Group on 8th May 2017 by Dr. Martin O'Grady: Dr. O'Grady presented to the review group, a comparison of wild trout CPUEs on fisheries where pike are both present and not present. The intent appeared to be to illustrate that lower CPUEs are solely a result of pike presence. A similar focus is contained in the Lough Corrib 1996 Survey report.

MOG / KD

Q3B How can a lake that can produce optimum trout densities of 11.5 be compared to one that will never achieve an optimum trout density higher than 2, 3 or 4 irrespective of pike presence, for example, comparison of Lough Ennell to Lough Melvin or Lein?

Ref: O'Grady & Delanty (2008), Section 4.3.1.2 (ii). the current largely “undisturbed” pike population, particularly in Lough Ennell, did not prohibit a significant increase in the adult wild trout population in this lake following the Shannon Regional Fisheries Boards successful stream enhancement programme in this fishery. Lake survey C.P.U.E. values for wild trout in Lough Ennell surveys from 2002 and 2006 ranged from 3.4 to 4.0 (Figure 8). The highest wild trout C.P.U.E. value ever recorded in a midland trout lake was 5.0 in Lough Sheelin in 1978 (Figure 6). Given that Lough Ennell has a significantly smaller euphotic zone than Lough Sheelin it is likely that a C.P.U.E. value for wild trout in Lough Ennell of 4.0 reflects this waters optimum trout carrying capacity.

Ref: Dr. Martin O'Grady presentation to the pike review group 8th May 2017 - (Page 6-7)

Comment Stock Survey Timing: Dr. Karen Delanty on 29th May 2017 stated that the Lough Lein and Melvin surveys were taken in summer, potentially showing a higher CPUE for trout.

MOG / KD

Q3C What reasoning does IFI have for not referring in scientific reports, to the effect or difference that could be expected in trout CPUE values from surveys taken at different times of the year?

MOG / KDQ3D What implications are there for CPUE results taken from

summer surveys as opposed to spring surveys with regard to trout and pike respectively?

Validity of CPUE Comparison

Item 4

Comment There would appear to be a high level of inconsistency on what defines a good trout density from fishery to fishery. The following excerpts are from various reports conducted on Irish Wild Brown Trout Fisheries. E.g.. Lough Conn in 2001 was on the brink of being removed from the list of quality brown trout fisheries with a CPUE of 2.5 yet five years prior to this (1996), Lough Corrib had a significantly lower CPUE value of 1.96 and was deemed to have had ideal trout stocks according to the 2012 stock report on this fishery. The 2012 report for Lough Corrib shows further falls in trout density (CPUE 1.54) yet again it is deemed to have provided excellent trout angling.

KD

Q4A Should Loughs Conn, Cullin, Mask and Corrib be defined as premier designated wild brown trout fisheries given they have CPUE values significantly lower than 2.5?

KD

Q4B Please provide explanation or clarification on why there is such variance in the level of CPUE on individual fisheries that defines whether a fishery qualifies as a quality wild brown trout fishery?

KD

Item 5

Comment The 2017 Season on Lough Sheelin was reported as difficult by anglers. A similar situation was reported for Lough Corrib in 2017. Anglers cited weather conditions and poor mayfly hatches as contributory factors. The 2012 - 2015 Seasons on Lough Sheelin (CPUE 0.97 - 3.67) yielded good angling returns.

KDQ5A What is the relationship between CPUE values and quality

of angling returns on each of the designated waters?

KDQ5B Why and what factors contribute to poor angling returns

where "good" CPUE values exist in any season?

KD

Q5C Have seasonal angling conditions on a yearly basis been documented against individual fisheries to determine the impact of angling conditions vs. angling returns?

Definition of a Quality Brown Trout Fishery

Ref: A Review of Changes in the Fish Stocks of Loughs Conn and Cullin over time (1978-2001). "There are only twelve such waters in western Europe, eleven of which are in Ireland. As the reader of this report will discover, Lough Cullin, as of 2001, can no longer be included in this list. Any further deterioration in the quality of trout stocks in Lough Conn, as of 2001, will also mean the loss of this water as a trout angling fishery. L. Conn can no longer be regarded as a premier trout angling water." Trout CPUE value of 1.50 for Cullin and 2.50 for Conn in 2001.

Ref: (The Current Status of Fish Stocks in Lough Sheelin, O Grady 2012) "CPUE values for wild trout are similar in both years (1.23 in 2011 and 0.97 in 2012)(Table 1). The current CPUE value, in combination with the stock structure, should be adequate to provide quality angling this year-quality angling has already been experienced by anglers on the lake this year (D. Broughan, pers com)."

Ref: Lough Corrib Fish Stock Survey 2012, O Grady et. al. 2012. "The excellent trout angling returns recorded on L. Corrib in the 2012 season confirm that the trout CPUE value recorded for the lake in the 2012 survey (1.56) reflects the presence of sufficient trout to provide quality angling given favourable angling conditions" Ref: (Lough Corrib Fish Stock Survey 1996, O Grady et. al. 1996) "The size and stock structure of the trout population, as measured in the 1996 survey, represents the ideal in fishery management terms - substantial numbers of young adult fish (< 40cm) many of whom will be large enough to be cropped by anglers in the 1996 and 1997 angling seasons. The numbers of older larger fish (>40cms) will ensure a good spawning population in the following year. The angling catches in both 1996 and 1997 were considered to be good." Trout CPUE 1.96

Ref: (Scientific Survey of Adult Fish Stocks in Lough Ree, O Grady et. al. 2016) "The 2014 L. Ree adult fish stock assessment indicates the presence of a healthy brown trout population in this fishery at the time of the survey" Trout CPUE 1.12

Relationship between trout CPUE values and quality brown trout angling

Q4C What is the CPUE for each individual Irish Wild Brown Trout Fishery, below which the fishery ceases to be a quality wild brown trout fishery?

Item 6

Comment According to the Corrib Federation angling catches on Lough Corrib in the early 1900s were of the order of 30 to 40 tons each year, a value validated against angling returns in the considerably smaller fishery Loch Leven (Toner 1959). The largest angling return in all years between 1965 and 1994 was in 1969 and was 12,853lbs i.e. 5.73 imperial tons, considerably less than 30-40 tons per season. Also bear in mind that there was a highly productive commercial fishing operation operating on Lough Corrib until at least 1986 further extracting large numbers of wild brown trout. According to the founding statements of some of the Lough Corrib angling clubs, pike existed on the lake shortly before 1800. Of course, recent scientific evidence suggests long before this.

MOGQ6A Please provide scientific comment on the demise of the

Lough Corrib brown trout population from the early 1900s to the 60s, 70s, and to present?

MOGQ6B Why was Lough Corrib capable of producing angling catches

of 30 to 40 tons each season in the early 1900's?

MOG

Q6C Is the vast reduction in the quality of trout angling on Loughs Conn, Corrib, Cullen, Mask, Sheelin etc. unrelated to abstraction, habitat destruction, ecological degradation, arterial drainage and other factors?

MOG

Q6D Observing the Lough Corrib CPUE graph for 1965 to 2012 (Appendix 2), in 1965 pike were not under control (Dr. M O Grady states 1968) and CPUE was 3.2, moving forward to 2012 where pike were fully under control (48% reduction from 1996 level) and the brown trout CPUE has fallen to 1.54. Where is the evidence of improvement in the brown trout stock due to pike management?

MOG

Q6E Please provide detailed comment on the real issues affecting the wild brown trout population of Lough Corrib? Please refer to the Lough Corrib brown trout CPUE chart (Appendix 2) generated using data from Dr. M O Grady's 1996 Fish Stock Survey of the fishery. Similar trends are evident across the entire data set during periods of pike management and no pike managements. Please provide comment on the detail shown on this graph.

MOG

Q6F Igoe et al. (2001) discuss the extinction of Charr in the West of Ireland (L. Conn and L. Corrib) and some the factors leading to that extinction. What influence did these same factors have on wild trout populations in each of these fisheries in the early 1990's?

MOG

Q6G Considering the information relating to the environmental deterioration of our wild brown trout fisheries and in this instance, specifically Lough Corrib from the formation of the Inland Fisheries Trust up to 2012, please provide a chronological data table setting out 1) all of the environmental stressors negatively impacting on the lake fishery; 2) all of the environmental stressors negatively impacting on the tributaries; 3) the individual rehabilitation measures that have been taken on the lake and also the tributaries; 4) the timescale (including year commencement and completion) of each measure; 5) the total cost of each measure; 6) The measured or hypothetical % contribution of each measure to the CPUE of wild trout on Lough Corrib.

MOG

Q6H In relation to Lough Corrib, please provide scientifically evaluated proof of the positive contribution that pike removal has had on the rehabilitation of Lough Corrib with regard to wild trout CPUE's since the formation of IFT to 2012? Please provide same for all managed fisheries across the same period.

MOG

Q6I What % contribution does pike removal contribute to the wild trout CPUE's on Lough Corrib compared to environmental rehabilitation measures? Please provide same for all managed fisheries.

Ref: Appendix 3. Toner 1959.

Ref: F. Igoe, M O Grady, C. Byrne, P. Gargan, W. Roche, J. O’Neill. (2001), Evidence for the recent extinctions of two Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus (L.) populations in the West of Ireland;

Ref: EPA Red Book 2011. "Arterial drainage has impacted on the physical habitat in many rivers, reducing their carrying capacity for, primarily, large adult brown trout."

Ref: Oughterard Anglers and Boatmens Association. "The work being done in the Oughterard Hatchery is now seen as important intervention to the survival of the wild trout stocks in the Owenriff System, and the wider Lough Corrib Catchment’s. Over the last 3-4 decades the trout spawning beds of the Owenriff System have suffered heavy fertiliser run-off from massive plantations of conifer trees"

Ref: Executive Summary of Lough Melvin Catchment Management Plan, Emer Campbell and Bob Foy, 2008. "The potential for heavily afforested coniferous catchments to act as a diffuse source of nutrients has been well documented within northern Europe and is particularly relevant for a sensitive catchment such as Lough Melvin. The potential for forestry to result in erosion, sedimentation and alter catchment hydrology are also of concern to the extent that they adversely impact on salmonid survival."

Ref: A Survey of Juvenile Lamprey Populations in the Corrib and Suir catchments, O Connor, 2007. "Most of the areas fished during the current survey were considered to be sub-optimum habitats. The Corrib catchment has been subjected to a number of drainage schemes in the past and many of the channels in the catchment have never fully recovered physically or ecologically."

Ref: A Survey of Juvenile Lamprey Populations in the Corrib and Suir catchments, O Connor, 2007. "The Corrib catchment, with the exception of some western tributaries of Lough Corrib, wassubjected to major drainage schemes during the mid 1800’s, the 1950’s and the 1980’s. Theseschemes had major impacts on the hydrology and fisheries of the catchment and resulted in the reduction in size of Loughs Corrib and Mask and the loss of other lakes in the catchment. Theimpact of these schemes remains apparent today."

Deterioration of Wild Brown Trout Stocks on Lough Corrib over the past 100 years

MOG

Q6J How effective have these measures been considering the continued decline of trout densities recorded for example in Lough Corrib, as evidenced in the 2012 stock survey report? Please provide same for all managed fisheries.

Ref: Report by The Wild Trout Trust on River Blackwater on behalf of Kells Angling Assoc. 17-20th Nov 2008"Parts of the river system have been arterially dredged. In 1969 an arterial dredging scheme commenced and disrupted angling for 18 years. The dredging altered the character of the river completely and resulted in many cases in leaving very high banks. The main channel for Drogheda upstream to Navan was left untouched, as were a few stretches on the Blackwater. Ongoing maintenance dredging is carried out along stretches of the river system where the gradient is low. This is extremely destructive to salmonid habitat in the area" "The water quality problems at the outflow from the Lough are because of excessive nutrient enrichment, leading to unstable dissolved oxygen levels, excessive growth of filamentous algae, reduced diversity of macrophyte and macroinvertebrate communities, and reduced fishery potential. Arterial drainage works on the river have reduced the lateral heterogeneity of the channel, and severely impoverished the in-stream habitat for salmonids."

MOG

Q6K In relation to Lough Corrib do we have estimated CPUE values that date back prior to a supposed time when pike were not present and ecological conditions were deemed pristine in the wild brown trout fisheries?

MOGQ6L Without a baseline how can we say whether a CPUE value

for these fisheries is high or low as a function of pike presence or absence?

MOG

Q6M What contribution does the Oughterard brown trout hatchery make to the quality of wild brown trout angling on Lough Corrib?

MOGQ6N What contribution does the Oughterard brown trout

hatchery make to the wild brown trout population of Lough Corrib?

MOG

Q6O

Could the time and resources expended at the Oughterard brown trout hatchery be utilised differently, with due consideration to genetic diversity, in order to improve the quality of brown trout angling on Lough Corrib? If so what activities could be undertaken?

Ref: Lough Corrib Fish Stock Survey 2012, O Grady et. al. 2012. Both major genetic studies of Corrib trout stocks (Massa – Gallucci et al., 2010 and Bradley et al., in press) point out that the Oughterard hatchery makes no significant contribution to the L. Corribfishery. As already illustrated the “genetic nature” of trout stocks in rivers on the eastern side of Corrib is distinctly different to those in the western side of the catchment. No trace of Oughterard type fish could be found in any of the eastern sub catchments indicating that releases of Oughterard hatchery fish in these rivers have not contributed to stocks in these rivers. Bradley et al., (in press) established a genetic profile for the Oughterard hatchery fish and found them, not surprisingly, to be genetically similar to the wild Oughterard fish stock.

Massa- Gallucci et al., (2010) also point to evidence of “gene flow” into, rather than out from, theOughterard stock. The implication here is that evidence of gene flow from the Oughterard River toother sub catchments would reflect a high survival of Oughterard hatchery fish being released intoother rivers. No such evidence exists.

In conclusion both genetic studies suggest that the stocking of fry from the Oughterard hatchery hashad no impact, either positive or negative, on the overall Corrib trout population.

Both genetic studies warn of the dangers of mixing these unique genetic stocks. To quote Bradleyet al., (in press) – “Movement of fish between rivers should be avoided to prevent a loss ofirreplaceable genetic diversity.”

In the authors’ opinion, if the precautionary principle were to be applied here, the hatchery shouldclose.

Item 7

Comment In his 1995 report “The Necessity for Pike Culling in Managing Ireland Premier Salmonid Lake Fisheries” Dr. M O Grady stated that he would have expected to see very good angling catches in the 1991 to 93 seasons following the break from angling brought about by the rod licence dispute of 1988-89.

MOG

Q7A In 1990, the year right after the rod licence dispute trout angling catches were of the order of that in the 1960s (CPUE 3.3), the highest value in 17 years, why was the significance of the year 1990 not referenced in the 1995 report?

Comment Table 3(a) of O'Grady et al. (1996) indicates an immediate drop in angling return CPUE's post the 1990 return season after 2 years of lake closure which saw the CPUE rise in 1990 to over 3 for the first time since 1965.

MOG

Q7B Was there a high un-recorded cropping rate of trout by anglers in the 1990 season as anglers flooded back to Lough Corrib following the 2 year break resulting in the reduced returns in the immediate years after?

MOG

Q7C It is noteworthy that the trout returns prior to the rod licence dispute were stable at a CPUE of around 2.0 yet it had recovered to its highest value in 17 years after the rod licence dispute at 3.3 and during a period of no pike management therefore does this indicate that angler cropping can have a negative impact on trout stocks?

MOGQ7D What scientific studies have been undertaken to assess the

effect of angler cropping on future brown trout populations within each wild brown trout fishery?

MOGQ7E What scientific studies have been undertaken to assess the

effect of angler cropping on future brown trout recruitment within each wild brown trout fishery?

MOG

Q7F Appendix 1 shows that trout Cpues on Lough Sheelin rose steadily from 2007 to 2015 to the highest level in over 30 years, despite an increase in pike Cpue's. How did the Lough Corrib brown trout population recover to a CPUE of 1.96 in 1996 from a very low level of 0.8 in 1991 despite the presence of a fully recovered and uncontrolled pike population? Identify the specific factors that resulted in this significant recovery post potential high angler cropping in 1990 and a subsequent dramatic fall from a CPUE value of 3.3.

MOG

Q7G Please comment on the effect of angler cropping rates using the Lough Corrib 1990 and 1991 values and also the Lough Carra data around the years 1998 to 2001 where a catch a release policy was implemented.

Ref: Chris Huxley 2012 (Lough Carra angling records from Peter Roberts 1995 to 2011). Lough Carra data clearly indicates that there is an inverse relationship between angler cropping and angling returns in subsequent years.

MOG

Q7H O'Grady et al. (1996) table 3a provides Cpue figures to indicate a reduction in Cpue between 1990 and 1994. Of note is that the average weight of trout captured during that period is 1.5lb which equates to an average length of 39.6cm using Fultons condition factor in section 3.1.6 of the same paper. In contrast, section 3.1.9.1 states that during the same period, anglers "consistently reported the fact that they are catching and returning significant numbers of small trout (

Item 8

Comment The data for Lough Corrib between 1996 and 2012 suggests that the pike population has been reduced by 48% which according to the science and objectives of pike management should have resulted in a rise in the trout population. The brown trout population has reduced by 24% over the same period.

MOG

Q8A Why has the brown population reduced and how is predator control deemed to be achieving its objective of improving trout angling quality with respect to this data?

MOG

Q8B Please provide the definitive list of factors that resulted in a 24% decrease in the trout stock in Lough Corrib over the period 1996 to 2012, despite the aggressive pike management program which effectively halved the pike population over the same period?

MOG

Q8C In relation to the sub catchments of the wild brown trout fisheries, is there data for the past and current % of trout spawning stream that are operating at optimal generative capacity?

MOGQ8D How is the baseline for spawning capacity established on

each wild trout fishery?

MOG

Q8E In relation to the sub catchments of the wild brown trout fisheries, is there past and current data on the % of suitable trout spawning habitat within each spawning stream / river catchment?

MOGQ8F How is the baseline for suitable trout spawning habitat

established on each wild trout fishery?

MOGQ8G In relation to the sub catchments of the wild brown trout

fisheries is there past and current data on the numbers of trout that each spawning/ stream river can produce?

MOG

Q8H What is the typical % mortality rate for 0+ trout fry?

IFPAC / IPS Comment: If the streams are producing far less trout and mortality is high then it stands to reason that lake recruitment is severely impacted?

Comment Lough Ennell has been shown to have the highest trout CPUE recorded for a midland lake and it has been stated by Dr. M O Grady (2007) that following extensive sub catchment restoration by the ShRFB Lough Ennell is operating at optimal trout carrying capacity. Lough Ennell is open all year for angling with the exception of trout angling which is conducted within the defined season. The fishery is open all year and through the trout close season for other types of angling (coarse, pike, perch), no negative effect to the trout population has been noted scientifically.

MOGQ8I What scientific basis has been used to justify closure of

Lough Sheelin to other forms of angling through the trout close season?

MOG

Q8J What scientific studies have been conducted relating to the effect of other forms of angling conducted on wild brown trout lakes (not spawning catchments) in relation to any effect that such angling could have on wild brown trout populations?

Reduction in Trout Densities Despite Aggressive Pike Control Operations

Ref: Lough Corrib Fish Stock Survey 2012, O Grady et. al. 2012.

Ref: Lough Corrib Fish Stock Survey 2012 Preliminary Report, O Grady et. al. 2012. "The 2012 survey data point to a significant decline in adult pike stocks compared to 1996, a time when trout stocks in the lake were higher. In these circumstances predation by pike on trout cannot be held responsible for the reduced trout stock."

Ref: Chris Huxley 2012 (Lough Carra angling records from Peter Roberts 1995 to 2011). "With the angling at its best, anglers were catching more than three trout per day, whereas in recent years that declined to less than one fish per day. Some of this can undoubtedly be put down to the changing behaviour of the trout. Many anglers have reported this significant change and it is widely felt that the catastrophic failure of the mayfly population (almost certainly as a result of the pollution of the lough through excessive inputs of nutrients), as well as declines in other aquatic insects (notably olives and murroughs) with a corresponding explosion of the chironomid population, has brought about this unfortunate tendency for the trout to adopt different feeding behaviour.Now that roach have become apparently well-established in the lough, it remains to be seen how the changing ecology will affect the trout population and feeding behaviour and, thus, the success of anglers."

IFPAC / IPS Comment: This is important if we are to know if this percentage is lower than periods in the past, otherwise how can we aspire to reach trout angling returns of the past?

Item 9

Comment An overview of Lough Sheelin survey CPUEs indicate that there can be considerable variance in individual species from one year to the next indicating population explosions or collapse on a yearly basis for example during 2000 to 2015.

KDQ9A What explanation is there for such large variances from one

year to the next?

KDQ9B Is age profile used to validate the accuracy of spring surveys

on L Sheelin?KD Q9C What are the implications for species modelling?

Comment The O'Grady method for spring survey netting doesn't catch roach

To No. Statement/ Question Relevant Reference Contributor / Attendee Response

Item 1

Comment There exists a number of studies (some referenced) that show the effect of perch and cyprinid populations on wild brown trout populations.

PG

Q1A

Do cyprinid and perch populations have an impact on trout populations and/ or their food web?

The results of the study, conducted in the early 1980’s indicated a significant correlation in diet between trout and perch, little correlation in diet between trout and roach and moderate correlation between perch and roach. However, the roach population increased significantly after the study period. The study concluded that the most important competitive interaction between all three fish species is likely to be at their juvenile stage for a cladoceran diet.

PG

Q1B The majority of studies where both species co exist illustrate an inverse relationship between roach and trout stocks? Please describe the factors that define this inverse relationship.

Comment O'Grady & Delanty (2000) conclude that in regard to the 1982-1984 study there was a "significant correlation in diet between trout and perch" and "little or no correlation in diet between trout and roach", however they admitted that 1) the study did not include juvenile roach, perch and trout, all of whom would "probably" be feeding on zooplankton & 2) the Sheelin roach population was only starting to expand & 3) there was an abundance of zooplankton.

KD

Q1C Given the authors "cautious interpretation" of the previous study, what studies have taken place post 1984 to examine the impact of competition for food among all age groups of roach, perch and trout?

Item 2

Comment Dr. Martin O'Grady's presentation to the pike review group 8th May 2017 - (Page 14) suggests that "substantial" brown trout populations can co-exist with large populations of perch and cyprinids. This observation would seem to be at odds with numerous alternative studies referenced. O'Grady & Gargan (1992) studied trout, perch and roach diets in Lough Sheelin and found evidence of competitive feeding interaction particularly between trout and perch and stated "that perch may limit the quantity of food available to trout on Lough Sheelin".

MOG

Q2A What CPUE of perch and cyprinids is considered a "large population" with reference to the comment of P14 of the presentation?

MOG

Q2B With regard to the same comment what CPUE of trout is considered to be a "substantial brown trout population" when taken in context with the perch and cyprinid CPUE's?

Ref: O Grady, Gargan, 1992. No 35 1992 Feeding relationships of trout Salmo trutta perch Perca fluviatilis L and roach Rutilus rutilus in Lough Sheelin Ireland

Ref: A Review of the Changes in the Fish Stocks of Loughs Conn and Cullin over time (1978 - 2001)

Ref: Ireland, Red List No. 5, 2011. "The combination of chemical and physical impactsalong with introduced species (e.g. roach, zebra mussel) may have significant ecological impacts changing, for example, the plankton communities to such an extent that food sources for certainsalmonids and coregonids become unavailable leading to extinctions."

Ref: Fitzmaurice, 1981. "Roach is a species which has been shown to affect salmonid production and cause the decline of brown trout fishing (Fitzmaurice, 1984). Within a few years of being introduced into a waterbody they can become the dominant species. They displace brown trout and rudd stocks disappear almost to the point of extinction"

Ref: O Grady, Delanty, 2000. "There is a clear and statistically negative correlation (r = - 0.57) between trout and roach C.P.U.E. values, recorded in Lough Sheelin from 1978 to date – i.e. over the period 1985 to 1990 there was a major increase in roach numbers and a marked decline in the trout population (Fig. 5). Again, in 2000, the lowest recorded trout C.P.U.E. value has been noted in the presence of a substantial roach stock (see Figs. 2 and 3)."

Species Effect

Wild Trout CPUE Verification

Impact of Perch and Roach on Brown Trout

Ref: Dr. Martin O'Grady presentation to the pike review group 8th May 2017 - (Page 14);

Gargan, P.G. & O'Grady, M.F., (1992): "Feeding Relationships of trout salmo trutta L., Perch Perca fluviatilis L., and Roach Rutilus rutilus (L.) in Lough Sheelin, Ireland", Department of Agriculture and Fisheries [Fisheries Division] Irish Fisheries Investigations Series A;35

Ref: Ireland, Red List No. 5, 2011. "The combination of chemical and physical impactsalong with introduced species (e.g. roach, zebra mussel) may have significant ecological impacts changing, for example, the plankton communities to such an extent that food sources for certainsalmonids and coregonids become unavailable leading to extinctions."

MOG

Q2C Considering the reports referenced relating to this section, what is the justification for the comments made during the presentation that "substantial" brown trout populations can co-exist with large populations of perch and cyprinids?

Item 3

Comment Dr. Martin O'Grady's presentation to the pike review group 8th May 2017 - (Page 18) highlights three ecological changes to our fisheries in the past 40 years.

MOG

Q3A Regarding the impact of the three ecological changes that have affected pike stocks, how have these changes specifically impacted trout stocks on each of the designated fisheries in the past 40 years?

MOG

Q3B What other ecological changes to the trout's environment have impacted negatively on stocks in each designated fishery over the past 40 years and what has been the direct result in terms of improved trout CPUE, of respective remediation measures taken to address those individual ecological changes?

Potential of Waters to be less Suited to Trout than Pike

Ref: Dr. Martin O'Grady presentation to the pike review group 8th May 2017 - (Page 18);

to extinctions."

Ref: Fitzmaurice, 1981. "Roach is a species which has been shown to affect salmonid production and cause the decline of brown trout fishing (Fitzmaurice, 1984). Within a few years of being introduced into a waterbody they can become the dominant species. They displace brown trout and rudd stocks disappear almost to the point of extinction"

Ref: O Grady, Delanty, 2000. "There is a clear and statistically negative correlation (r = - 0.57) between trout and roach C.P.U.E. values, recorded in Lough Sheelin from 1978 to date – i.e. over the period 1985 to 1990 there was a major increase in roach numbers and a marked decline in the trout population (Fig. 5). Again, in 2000, the lowest recorded trout C.P.U.E. value has been noted in the presence of a substantial roach stock (see Figs. 2 and 3)."

To No. Statement/ Question Relevant Reference Contributor / Attendee Response

Item 1

IFI

Q1A In the management plan for stock management 2017, what was the scientific methodology for calculating the number of juvenile and adult pike to be removed from each of the managed fisheries? Please provide relevant details and calculations

IFI

Q1B In the management plan for stock management 2017, what was the scientific methodology for calculating the number of juvenile and adult non escoids species to be removed from each of the managed fisheries? Please provide relevant details and calculations

IFIQ1C Why as appears the case, were the quotas for pike

exceeded on some fisheries during 2017 stock management operations?

IFIQ1D What is the impact of gillnetting on wild brown trout

populations?

IFI

Q1E What is the impact of gillnetting on future wild brown trout populations given that adult trout that have already successfully spawned are captured and injured/ killed in gillnets and are unable to return and successfully respawn in the spawning streams they have vacated prior to capture?

IFI

Q1F Why were pike management operations undertaken on the Clare River in January 2017 prior to the drafting of an agreed Stock Management Plan and without apparent sanction from IFI HQ in Citywest, Dublin?

IFI

Q1G Who directed IFI operations staff to begin pike management operations in January 2017 prior to an agreed Stock Management Plan being in place and without sanction from IFI HQ in Citywest, Dublin?

IFI

Q1H Why were pike management operations in 2017 allowed to commence without the required water tanks needed for pike transfer as a pre-requisite for compliance with the IFI pike policy (2014)?

IFI

Q1IWhat testing has been carried out on the use of water tanks on IFI craft since the drafting of the 2017 Stock Management Plan and what has been the result of this testing?

IFI

Q1J Who presently has overall responsibility in IFI for ensuring compliance with IFI policies and procedures and in particular current compliance relating to pike management policies?

Item 2

Comment Pike management operations affect a range of fish, birds, invertebrates and mammals causing injury and/ or death.

IFI

Q2A What environmental impact assessments have been carried out by IFI or the NPWS in relation to the environmental impact of gillnetting on the designated fisheries and particularly those designated as 'Special Protection Areas' and 'Special Areas of Conservation'?

IFI

Q2B What environmental impact assessments have been carried out by IFI or the NPWS in relation to the environmental impact of electro fishing on the designated fisheries and particularly those designated as 'Special Protection Areas' and 'Special Areas of Conservation'?

IFI

Q2C What information is available and has been presented to state agencies such as the NPWS relating to the environmental impacts of pike management operations, and in particular gillnetting and electro fishing?

IFI

Q2D Do records of communications between IFI and state agencies such as the NPWS exist in relation to pike management operations i.e. gillnetting and electro fishing and can such communications be made available to the review group?

Pike Management

Annual Stock Management Plan

Environmental Impacts of Stock Management

Item 3

Comment Irelands river and lake resources are increasingly utilised for leisure activities outside of just boating and angling. In the last decade there has been an exponential increase in water based activities such as kayaking, freshwater snorkelling, freshwater diving, amateur filming of freshwater habitats etc. Pike management operations now operate year round and as such pose significant public health and safety risks to members of the public outside of the angling community and hence unaware that such operations are at times undertaken on waters where they participate in their activities.

IFI

Q3A What public Health and Safety risk assessments have been undertaken in relation to predator management activities with specific consideration to the previous comment?

IFI

Q3B What public Health and Safety information has been issued to both the angling and non angling public in order to raise awareness of the significant health and safety risks associated with entering areas where gillnetting and electro fishing is being undertaken as part of pike management operations?

IFI

Q3C What protocols have been enacted stemming from Public Health and Safety risk assessments in order to mitigate against risk or injury to members of the public using a watercourse while pike management operations are being executed?

IFI

Q3D What public information campaign have IFI initiated in the Republic of Ireland to advise of Public Health and Safety risks in the respective fisheries associated with pike management operations and what media resource has been used in such a campaign?

Water users visiting Ireland must be made aware of the significant risks they face when entering/ using water courses where pike management activities occur.

IFI

Q3E What public information campaign have IFI initiated in in other jurisdictions (particularly N Ireland and the UK) to advise of Public Health and Safety risks in the respective fisheries associated with pike management operations and what media resource has been used in such a campaign?

Tourist water users visiting Ireland must be made aware of the significant risks they face when entering/ using water courses where pike management activities occur.

IFI

Q3F What if any public Health and Safety signage is present at waterway entry points (not limited to slipways / harbours etc.) warning the public of the risks and locations of pike management operations and if not present, why is this so?

Such signage should at a minimum present the locations and risks on a day by day basis as operations progress during periods when predator management operations are being executed.

IFI

Q3G Have detailed maps been produced of each designated fishery, to show the precise location and the relevant timelines that gillnetting and electro fishing is carried out over the calendar year?

Public Health and Safety

Item 4

IFI

Q4A Can the following reports and papers be classified as "published peer reviewed" material, or alternatively can each respective report with respect to pike biology be considered to be based upon peer reviewed scientific research?

Ref: Presentation by Dr. M O Grady 2010. "The Necessity for Controlling Pike Stocks on Some Quality Irish Wild Brown Trout Managed Lake Fisheries"

Ref: O Grady, Delanty, 2008. "The Ecology, Biology and Management of Pike in Irish Waters with Particular Reference to Wild Brown Trout Lake Fisheries"

Ref: O Grady et. al. 1996. "Fish Stock Survey Report for Loughs Corrib, Mask and Carra and Future Management Options for this Fishery Resource"

Ref: O Grady, 1995. "The Necessity for Pike Culling in Managing Irelands Premier Salmonid Fisheries"

Comment Loch Leven is regarded as the only true European wild brown trout fishery outside of Ireland. The lakes history is in some ways similar to that of Lough Sheelin where significant degradation of the lake ecology occurred due to agricultural practices. Rehabilitation of Loch Leven began by tackling the negative effects facing the fishery. The fishery has returned to near optimum trout angling potential and also supports excellent pike and perch angling. Pike management or control of pike populations is not a feature of the management principles of Loch Leven. Pike angling is promoted by the fishery managers and generates significant revenue.

IFI

Q4B Have IFI consulted with Loch Leven Fisheries on their management strategy for pike and their success in providing both high quality pike and wild brown trout angling?

Scientific Justification

To No. Statement/ Question Relevant Reference Contributor / Attendee Response

Item 1

Comment The methodology employed in the recent ESRI survey (Survey of Angler Preferences for the Management of Pike in Designated Wild Brown Trout Fisheries) ensured representation, as accurately as possible, the views of pike and trout anglers nationally and not solely the preferences of pike and trout representative bodies.

JCQ1A

Did the methodology achieve its objective?Yes, the survey achieved a broad coverage of pike and trout anglers

Comment With regard to trout representative bodies, NARA claims to have 10,000 individual members in its ranks. There is duplicity within this figure as individuals with multiple angling club memberships are counted for each membership. Similarly there is no detailed breakdown of this membership into into its constituents such as salmon anglers, pike anglers, coarse anglers, overseas anglers etc. Therefore the true representation of trout anglers is difficult to accurately ascertain.

JC

Q1BTaking the full membership figure of 10000 (over estimate) what percentage of the national trout angling population are represented by NARA based on ESRI figures of a 3.1% incidence of trout anglers in the population?

The representation of NARA members in the survey cannot be quantified, as affiliation information was not collected.

JCQ1C How many NARA members would have been required to

take part in the survey in order for NARA to be represented in the results?

The survey is not necessarily representative of NARA members, nor was it intended to be.

CommentWith regard to the second trout representative body, TAFI claims to have 15,000 individual members in its ranks. There is duplicity within this figure as individuals with multiple angling club memberships are counted for each membership. Similarly there is no detailed breakdown of this membership into its constituents such as salmon anglers, pike anglers, coarse anglers, overseas anglers etc. Therefore the true representation of trout anglers is difficult to accurately ascertain.

JC

Q1DTaking the full membership figure of 15000 (over estimate) what percentage of the national trout angling population are represented by TAFI based on ESRI figures of a 3.1% incidence of trout anglers in the population?

The representation of TAFI members in the survey cannot be quantified, as affiliation information was not collected.

Comment At the first Pike Review Group meeting on the 8th May 2017 NARA stated that it had informed all of its members not to take part in the ESRI survey (Survey of Angler Preferences for the Management of Pike in Designated Wild Brown Trout Fisheries). Subsequently, we have been informed that on the 6th October 2016 an official email communication was sent to NARA affiliated clubs informing them of the survey and stating that they may like to participate in the survey. It has been stated that no further official communication was issued relating to participation in the ESRI survey after this date. As such, this is important information as it appeared to be an attempt to undermine the validity of the survey.

JC

Q1E

Can any comment be made on the validity of the angler survey if as appears now the case, that NARA did not officially restrict members from participating in the survey?

It is impossible to determine whether NARA's actions had any impact, if any. However, we had many many requests to participate in the survey, as well as several notifications that people wanted to participant in the survey despite the NARA communication

ESRI Survey of Angler Preferences for the Management of Pike in Designated Wild Brown Trout Fisheries

ESRI Survey

Ref: Appendix 7 Email from NARA Secretary on 6th October 2016 at 12:11:51 IST

Item 2

CommentDenis Maher, Principal Officer for Inland Fisheries at The Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment, attended the ESRI Survey presentation in June 2017. The attendance of Mr. Maher was m