The case in favour of continuing to fish for wild salmon is made by Mike Fitzpatrick.
Commercial fishermen depend more than anyone on wild salmon yet their views have not yet been aired in recent times in the debate on wild salmon fishing. There is a need to set the record straight as much of the information circulated to date has ranged from the poorly informed to outright propaganda.
Let's look at some facts relating to the issue and some questions that need to be answered.
The fate of the fishermen is being driven by scientific advice that can best be described as patchy. This was acknowledged in an article by Prof Noel Wilkins (The Irish Times, July 29th) who stated that "it is not at all scientifically certain that a complete ban on net fishing is either wise or necessary".
The Standing Scientific Committee, who are appointed by the Minister to advise the National Salmon Commission, in their 2006 report, acknowledge the shortcomings in their assessment, when they refer to the fact that their data collection methods are not ideal due to a lack of resources. As a result, their report involves many generalisations and assumptions.
Salmon should be one of the easiest fish stocks to assess, as all the fish have to pass upriver where counting them is considerably easier than at sea. Unfortunately, there are only 15 salmon counters in the State, whereas in the Foyle system alone, there are seven counters. Why haven't we invested more in getting an accurate assessment of our salmon stocks?
Notwithstanding the inadequacies in their assessment, the scientists conclude in their report that the best way to manage stocks is within rivers and estuaries.
This is like saying that the best way to prevent accidents on our roads would be to ban all cars.
The pillar of the scientific argument against drift-net fishing is that it involves mixed-stock fishing, ie the catching of fish from a number of stocks or areas.
The reason why the scientists have jumped to the conclusion that fishing can only be managed in rivers and estuaries is that they have never conducted the research necessary to quantify the extent of this problem, or to allow the exploration of other management options that would reduce its impact.
An EU Commission report from May 2006, on mixed-stock salmon fishing, showed that there were significant decreases in levels of mixed-stock fishing following the move in from 12 miles to six in 1997. Why is the possibility of further reducing mixed-stock catches to acceptable levels not being explored?
That same commission report also states that salmon stock conservation should be an integrated process involving fisheries management, habitat protection and water quality improvement. Why then, do our scientists relegate these other critical issues to such a low level that it will be sufficient to deal with them in "future advice"?
This is particularly puzzling given that a 2006 Environmental Protection Agency report concluded that 37 per cent of rivers and lakes in Ireland had serious pollution levels and that these waters are unlikely to support salmon populations. It would appear that putting fishermen off the water is an easier option, or perhaps a higher priority, than tackling the pollution in our waterways.
The angling lobby usually paints a black-and-white picture, with the commercial fisherman inevitably characterised as the villain and the angler as the knight in shining armour whose only desire is to save the salmon. The Joint Oireachtas Committee on Communications Marine and Natural Resources take a different view in their report last year, when they state that "it is the commercial sector that has taken most of the pain and sacrifice to save the salmon species."
The committee made this statement because commercial fishermen have made huge conservation concessions in the past few years, including, reducing their fishing area by 66 per cent, their season by 83 per cent (their nets are now only in the water for 6 per cent of annual time) and their quota by over 60 per cent. The harsh reality is that much of the angling lobby is driven purely by financial interests.
Private fishery owners stand to gain significantly from the banning of drift-netting and many of the arguments being put forward by them must be viewed in this light.
One fallacy that is regularly promoted by the anti-fishing lobby is the idea that Irish drift-net fishermen are catching huge numbers of salmon from the rivers of continental Europe. In fact, over the past 20 years less than half of 1 per cent of the tagged fish caught in the Irish fishery have been of European origin.
Contrary to the claims of groups such as Stop Drift Nets Now and the Federation of Irish Salmon and Seatrout Anglers (FISSTA), we believe that the conservation issue is being conveniently used to support the transfer of a resource from one sector to another. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that these groups want commercial fishing to be stopped, even in areas where there is a surplus of fish such as Cork or Kerry, on the basis that there should be zero tolerance for catches of fish from rivers below their conservation limits.
At the same time, FISSTA complains, wrongly, that the Minister has signed an order banning salmon angling in a number of areas where stocks are low. (The order does not in fact ban angling as it allows for catch and release which still results in the killing of fish). The inconsistency in their position is evident - surely the same principle of conservation must apply equally to all?
The commercial sector's view is simple - fishermen who volunteer to leave the fishery should be able to do so with fair compensation, while those that wish to remain should retain the right to participate in a viable and sustainable manner.
Entire coastal communities are counting on the Ministers responsible, Mr Dempsey and Mr Browne, to see through the rhetoric and to devise a workable solution to accommodate all sectors equally.
Mike Fitzpatrick is writing on behalf of the Irish South and West Fishermen's Organisation