| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Bob Wyatt
Member
111 Posts |
 Posted - 06/06/2001 : 10:10:01
|
Can anyone confirm, ot otherwise inform us on what sound like disturbing reports of poor and declining fishing on Lough Conn?
Wyatt
|
|
|
shuck raider
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2001 : 17:26:30
|
Bob, I append the report for last week from Central Fisheries Board on Lough Conn:
"Small hatches of mayflies were seen all over the LOUGH CONN, but few fish rising during the day. The best of the fishing was to the spent which started to go out most evenings about 3 o’clock. 400 trout and 18 salmon were reported. Heaviest fish by Micky Kelly Dublin weighed 4.25 lbs. He also had some fabulous days with 8 fish one day and 7 for 18 lbs. the next day. Micky concentrated on dries with all his fish coming to the Royal Wulff and Spent patterns.
Walter and Susan Byrne had 27 trout for 6 days best 4 lbs. Larry Kelly and John Jack had 24 trout for the week. Aiden Heffernan and Andrew Murray Dublin had 20 trout for the week. John Gorman and friend from Sligo had 7 trout weighing 10 lbs. for one day. Hugh McArdle Galway had 6 trout best 3 lbs. Ronnie Little and son had 4 trout best 2.75 lbs. Mick Sweeney had 4 trout weighing 6 lbs. Brian Creighton Dublin had 4 trout and a 6 lbs. grilse. Bill O’Connell Wicklow had 3 trout for his first day on the lake this year. Victor Wheeler Northern Ireland had 3 salmon trolling best 14 lbs."
400 trout and 18 salmon in a week doesn't sound like a lough in crisis to me! Maybe you just hit it at a bad time when you were here in early May
|
 |
|
|
Bob Wyatt
Member
111 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2001 : 03:09:25
|
Shuck Raider, you're right, it sure doesn't. It wasn't my recent trip that made me ask about a possible decline in the fishing on Conn - we were just too early and got some cold weather. That's just fishing, but while there we ran into some Conn anglers who complained that there were real issues regarding water quality, low trout numbers, mismanagement. What gives? Anything in it at all?
Wyatt |
|
|
|
shuck raider
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2001 : 15:51:19
|
Bob, You know that you will always have moaners and groaners, reminiscing about 'the good old days'. Sure, Conn ain't all that it used to be, but tell me somewhere that is? I first fished it 30 years ago and can remember bagsful of fish, now I have to work hard for 'em. Not so many pike around either, due to clearances by the Western Fisheries Board, not only in Conn but Mask and Corrib too. Maybe that has something to do with it. The Irish record pike came from Conn in the Twenties, 56 lb. Don't tell me that big trout and big pike can't co-exist, because there were regular catches of double-figure browns at that time too. The guy who caught the record pike had browns to 14lb in the same week as he caught the pike. Water quality is an issue all over Ireland, more so on the Midland loughs like Sheelin, but that's a hot potato at the minute and I ain't getting into it. Seems like there are a number of issues relating to out big limestone loughs, I for one would like to open this debate a little wider
|
|
|
|
Bob Wyatt
Member
111 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2001 : 03:06:13
|
shuck,
I reckon you're right on all those points, but there seemed to be something quite sincere about these old boys on Conn. Were very clear on the local sewerage issue, etc. Observing the incredible level of development in that region, I'd say these issues are going to heat up. This forum would be an appropriate place to open the discussion of management of these precious resources.
Wyatt |
|
|
|
shuck raider
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2001 : 18:01:10
|
Bob, Not doubting the sincerity of the locals, after all, they're best placed to know and doubtless are the first to hear about it. Perhaps the guys from the Western Regional Fisheries Board are the folk to ask, if Danny McGoldrick or any of their officials read these postings, I would be interested to hear their comments
|
|
|
|
jeffjones
Starting Member
7 Posts |
Posted - 14/06/2001 : 12:17:11
|
I think Conn has been experiencing some eutrophication for some time now - I know Danny Goldrick told me once that the fish in adjoining Lough Cullin were getting larger, which was a trifle worrying rather than being out-and-out good news. I also believe that Conn fish have got bigger but are less numerous than previously. It would be interesting to to know if they always used to feed on, say, hog lice - deeper down - as they sometimes do now.
jeffjones |
|
|
|
shuck raider
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 14/06/2001 : 16:01:30
|
Jeff, Sheelin is the classic case where eutrophication has proved almost fatal. There are still some really big browns taken each year, but numbers dwindle year on year and no small trout are to be found. It's only a matter of time...........
|
|
|
|
FrankM
Starting Member
4 Posts |
Posted - 18/06/2001 : 07:29:59
|
Yes, I've fished Sheelin. It seems like timing is everything there in order to get the big fish moving at the surface. I heard reports that the lake had another bad bout with effluent this year. Any truth in that?
FrankM |
|
|
|
shuck raider
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 18/06/2001 : 16:15:12
|
Frank, I haven't been there since the end of April, but the water looked good then, around Kilnahard and Crover. Some duckfly hatching, a few fish being caught. The chat in the pubs around the lough was of a survey carried out by the CFB which, surprise, surprise, indicated a very low stock density of trout and apparently they had chucked in some 5000 2yo browns. This, of course will not address the problem and is merely sticking a finger in the dyke. Because Sheelin lies in a natural basin and attracts the wash-off from pig farms etc as well as all the surplus phosphate fertilser from surrounding arable farms, there are bound to be severe eutrophication problems and until this issue is addressed, the lough is staggering towards extinction IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Bob Wyatt
Member
111 Posts |
Posted - 25/09/2001 : 02:27:31
|
On my last trip to Corrib, I had the chance to speak about this to a few people. The concensus is that Conn is indeed in trouble. One highly regarded guide stated flatly that it was f****d, the trout fishing was really on Cullin, and it was getting hammered by competitions. It wasn't clear to me just what the specific problem was, but 'pollution' definitely seems to be part of it. I suspect that the kill might be too high as well. I'd like to hear from somebody close to the problem. if there is one. In any case, trout fishing on Conn, by most accounts, seems to be worsening - while Corrib is clean and sustaining itself.
Wyatt |
|
|
|
Paul King
Junior Member
81 Posts |
 Posted - 26/09/2001 : 04:36:00
|
I have only just picked up this topic. I have fished the midland loughs at least twice a season over the past three or four years. There are a couple of interesting points. Sheelin is always a difficult lough as there is so much natural food that getting a fish on artificial is always going to be a challenge. Having said that there are clearly problems with fish numbers, particularly juveniles and the future is once again looking bleak unless the pollution problems are sorted out once and for all. Stuart McTeare told me in 1998 the he thought that Sheelin was just coming out of its "Golden Era". His logic? The lough had recovered from almost total disaster in the 1980's and was producing fair numbers of fish and some very large fish, recently fish to over 15lbs have been taken and bigger lost. If the pollution problems were solved the recruitment of young fish would improve and eventually drag the average weight down and very large fish would be less common. If the pollution problems were not solved then although there would still be some very big fish, the recruitment of juveniles would suffer and the overall population would eventually crash - Maybe that's why he sold out later that year! There did seem to be a dramatic fall off in fish numbers between 1998 and 2000 only rectified by the injection of stock in 2001. On my last visit I fished for three days and rose (and missed out of sheer surprise) one fish and no more than a handful of others yet the water was alive with insect life. I had to put my sun-glasses on at dusk to keep the sedges out of my eyes!
Its not just Sheelin, having got frustrated with Sheelin I sometimes go over to "easier" Ennell in the knowledge that I can get a few rises at a least even if the chances of a monster are less. In 1998 I was getting around three or four fish a trip on Ennell when Sheelin was very hard and seeing plenty of fish on the move. A year or so later it was distinctly worse and according to the reports, this year has been a disaster. Sheelin was stocked and Owel was stocked (as usual) and this is where the decent fishing has been. It is somewhat worrying that these superb fisheries now have to stock to produce decent fishing. Nobody expects to go out on a natural brown trout water and catch a boatful but you do expect to see a few fish or get a couple of offers even if one's own inadequacies mean nothing in the boat.
It would be a crime if these loughs were allowed to go back to the dire state of eutrophication that they suffered a decade or so ago. There is nothing quite like pushing out of the Inny through the reeds at the bottom end of Sheelin and wondering what monsters might show at the fly during the course of the day.
Paul King |
|
|
|
BobP
Starting Member
6 Posts |
Posted - 26/09/2001 : 13:25:11
|
What we need to bear in mind is that these are WILD fisheries we are talking about, and as such are always going to have variable numbers of the different age classes of fish in them according to the conditions prevailing at spawning time. If there are floods in the spawning streams bringing down lots of silts which penetrate the redds and kill off the ova before they hatch, then we cannot expect that year's recruitment to be too good, can we? However, I agree that there almost certainly other factors at work as well. Drainage of farm land speeds the run-off which carries those silts into the river, together with nutrients which add to the eutrophication burden the lakes are already experiencing. Trout are not necessarily damaged by the algal blooms resulting from eutrophication - all our lowland reservoirs suffer from algal blooms at some time each season, and the fish still survive. In fact eutrophication could be considered essential for fish growth as it puts nutrients into the system which feeds the food that trout live on. Like many other problems, this is a complex one. There are easy quick fixes such as "kill all the pike and the trout fishing will be fine again". Trout and pike have co-existed since the beginning of time, and they are both still here. It is only when we humans start interfering that the whole system gets f****d up. Certainly get the water quality as good as you can - it is much better to fish in clear water rather that green soup, but pay especial attention to the spawning beds. Get the gravel right and ensure that the fry have plenty of cover in the nursery streams and I don't think there will be much to complain of as far as trout fishing is concerned.
|
|
|
|
Paul King
Junior Member
81 Posts |
Posted - 27/09/2001 : 19:56:29
|
BobP,
What you say about wild trout populations is basically true. You can lose a year class through any number of natural events - its normal and seldom fatal. The problem with Sheelin is that it isn't just one year class, there is a shortage of fish over a number of year classes. What we have is a diminishing number of ever larger fish, a classic portent of doom. It happened on Derravagh. I'm not sure of the actual figures but the survey this Spring showed a trout population of something like 5% of what the lough was estimated to be able to support as quoted in Peter O'Reilly's book, i.e. around 140,000 fish. Sue the fish there are monsters but this is more than an odd natural event taking out the odd year class - there is a very serious problem!
Paul King |
|
|
|
BobP
Starting Member
6 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2001 : 14:45:10
|
As a professional Fisheries Officer working for the Environment Agency I would love to know how the Irish can survey 4000 acres of stillwater and come up with a trout population estimate upon which to base a management strategy. We certainly have no method in England, Wales and Scotland put together by which to arrive at the sort of figures that are spoken of with reference to Sheelin in particular, but by extension to other Irish loughs as well. Electric fishing, netting, both active and passive, sonar and hydroacoustics will not give anything like an accurate figure over a waterbody of that size. We never assume that we have caught more than 95% of the fish in a given 100m stretch of clear, relatively weed free, river when it is less than 10m wide and less than 60cm deep, ie wadeable with good visibility, much less 4000 acres of water up to 50 or 60' deep. How on earth did they decide that Sheelin SHOULD hold 140,000 sizeable trout? This is not to pour scorn on those who feel there are serious problems at Sheelin and probably other Irish loughs as well. They may well be right. This is simply to point out the pitfalls in making too many assumptions. What is needed here is some clear thinking, some carefully defined objectives and a strategy that all interested parties can sign up to and implement over as many years as it takes to restore Sheelin to a balanced fishery. Oh - and loads of dosh as well because this sort of thing will probably cost a couple of hundred grand a year to do it properly.
|
|
|
|
Paul King
Junior Member
81 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2001 : 19:27:09
|
BobP
I believe that they relied almost entirely o test netting and compared results with previous years. I had a load of e-mailed info from the "Friends of Sheelin" pressure group but lost it when my hard disk crashed a few weeks ago.
I fully accept what you say about the difficulty of getting an accurate picture but the simple fact is that you can never realistically do it on a water of that size. Its about the same as Rutland but not as deep for the most part. Just imagine the problems of doing similar work on Corrib which is ten times as big!
Notwithstanding that you still have to be able to recognise and deal with problems quickly rather than spend several years trying to get A1 data by which time it may be too late. Almost anyone that has fished Sheelin over a number of years will confirm that there is a shortage of the younger year classes, that the average weights of the wild fish are increasing and that the number of fish seen over a season in recent years is falling.
There is a new sewage treatment works at Granard at the top end which has solved that problem and hopes were high that Sheelin would make a permanent recovery but it seems that slurry has once more become the nuisance factor.
Paul King |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Lough Conn troubles?
