Mr. Harry Lloyd of the National Fisheries Management Executive advised the sub-Committee

“… …My colleague, Mr. Roche, will advise members that in the Sligo district where it is proposed to close the fishery, rod anglers caught almost the same number of fish as drift net fishermen - some 2,600 as against 2,690. Based on the statistic that only 20% of fish are caught by rod anglers - Mr. Roche will advise on what is happening in my region and the Ballina district - there is something seriously askew in the figures ……”

Mr. Vincent Roche also of the National Fisheries Management Executive advised the sub-Committee

“… …In the case of the Moy, almost 10,000 salmon were caught by anglers last year. It was said this morning that anglers would exploit about 20% of the catch in any river. It might be higher on the Moy where it could be approximately 25% but, assuming anglers on the river took 25% of the catch last year, it means 75% remains in the river. This means there are at least 30,000 salmon left. However, the conservation limit recommended by the scientists for the river is 24,000. This suggests we are way above our conservation limit. The surplus of 15,000 recommended for the Ballina district simply would not hold up in that situation. There are contradictions… …”

However, there is not a full return of angling catches (logbooks) and doubts were throw on official returns

Mr. Michael Nealon an Economic Consultant advised the sub-Committee

“… …The ESRI report of 1986 suggested a rod catch, when the averages are multiplied, of approximately 100,000 fish in the country at that time. Indecon went through the same exercise, some of which I have discredited. However, that report, when grossed up, also indicates a catch of 100,000 fish. I am not suggesting anything because I do not know what is the level of the catch… …”.

2.4 The traditional nature of the fisheries.

The traditional nature of the salmon fishery was also very strongly expressed in the submissions from both the Draft net fishermen and the Drift net sectors. They emphasised the community value of their fisheries, the contribution it made to jobs in isolated and often deprived areas.

Mr. Frank Doyle of the Irish Fishermen’s Organisation advised the sub-Committee

“… …It is not a new subject by any means. It goes back to the 1930s at least and possibly earlier. In fact, I heard Mr. Curran refer to the Land Acts just a while ago. They go back much further than that, so the salmon issue has a long history. Unfortunately, from a discussion perspective, this is an emotive history and the subject is far from dispassionate… …”.

Mr. John Doherty of the Donegal Traditional Inshore Fishermen advised the sub-Committee

“… …My submission emphasises that in the 1930s the Congested Districts Board came to the help of the impoverished people along the western seaboard. Although there was a tradition, the boats, mostly currachs, were small and the board helped with the supply of boats and equipment. In County Donegal, in particular, the salmon fishery was the nursery from which the rest of the fishing industry developed. Fathers and sons, the owners of small 16 ft or 20 ft boats, would eventually acquire a half-decker or a larger boat. Fishing has changed in the area but that tradition lives on and it serves to maintain the economic and cultural fabric of communities… …”.

The angling sector also strongly expressed the traditional nature of the rod fishery when Mr. Noel Carr of the Federation of Irish Salmon & Sea Trout Associations advised the sub-Committee

“… …We regard the angling sector and angling tourism as the saviour, financier and opportunity to return to sustainable levels so that we can ensure the survival of the wild Atlantic salmon… …”.

2.5 Regulation and reduction of effort in the commercial sector

The commercial sector pointed out how regulation has resulted in a decrease in the effort being exerted on the stocks and how there has been a consequent reduction in catches.

Mr. Ned McCormack of the Slaney Draft Netmen’s Association advised the sub-Committee

“… …Nobody has seriously mentioned the real reason for the depletion of salmon stocks. We have given up three months’ fishing and one day a week. We used to start on 1 April, but we do not start now until 12 May. The fish which escape during the three months should have been enough to stock the river, but the anglers are taking them out of it. They will have to come a long way as well to help the conservation effort… …”.

Mr. Michael Hodgins a draft net fisherman on the River Boyne, Drogheda advised the sub-Committee

“… …In our river, we were reduced in the first year to a period of three months. They fished [anglers] from 1 February until 15 September. We fished from 12 February until 12 August. Our period was then reduced and ran from 12 April to 12 August… …”.

The snap net fishery is a traditional method of fishing peculiar to the South East. However, this fishery is very small and the Joint Committee make the observation that this fishery can not be responsible for stock depletion because of the small numbers of fish involved.

Mr. Peter Walsh of the Barrow-Nore-Suir Snap net Fishermen’s Alliance advised the sub-Committee

“… …The snap net fishermen have 3% of the national catch, which equates to approximately 23 salmon per licence. That is even less per person than the rod fishermen can catch. Approximately 25% of snap net fishing involves two boats in the operation of the snap net and two people in each boat - a total of four people. The other 75% of snap net fishing involves two people, one in each boat. There are two men crews and four men crews, as they are called… …”.

Mr. Frank Doyle of the Irish Fishermen’s Organisation advised the sub-Committee

“… …The only people affected by the salmon task force report to date are those in the commercial sector, specifically the drift net sector which saw its fishing week reduced from five days to four, the daily time reduced from 24 hours to 17 and the 12-mile limit reduced to six miles. Catch logbooks were introduced as well and, in more recent years, commercial quotas, further increasing the pressure on that particular sector. Nothing was imposed on any other sector of the industry. In particular, there is no limit on the quantity of fish that the leisure or angling, sector can take. No limit is suggested anywhere in the discussions in this regard. Neither is there any limit on the number of licences that may be taken up. The result is that there is a totally skewed policy at present which is very heavily biased against one sector and exceedingly promotional towards another in terms of its application focus… …”.

Mr. Lorcan Ó Cinnéide of the Irish Fish Producers Organisation advised the sub-Committee

“… …We must remember when discussing commercial drift netting that limiting the fishery from 12 miles to six did not halve the area but reduced the area of sea available by two thirds. Let me point out that this activity occurs for 6.2% of annual time. This means that for 93.8% of the year there is no man-made impediment at sea to fish arriving in rivers. The supposed damage being done by commercial fisheries suggests that the vast majority of fish are arriving in precisely the two calendar months when the State allows fishermen to operate during the day four days per week to commit voluntary suicide. This is completely at variance with the facts, as anybody who is right-minded knows…”.

Mr. Michael Connors of the East & South-East Netsmen’s Association advised the sub-Committee

“… …A further point is that commercial fishermen are blamed for everything. We have given so much we cannot give any more. For the past 40 years I was free to fish from 1 February to 15 August, five days per week, 24 hours per day. Now, the season is restricted to June and July, four days per week, from 4 a.m. to 9 p.m. As time passed the Department asked us to act to help conserve salmon stocks. We did so but got nothing back for this except the talk at this committee about commercial fishermen.

The angling representatives, in particular, as well as those who spoke against commercial fishermen should explain what happened to spring salmon. We do not fish in that season anymore as we begin fishing on 1 June. However, despite the absence of fishing in February, March, April and May, stocks are still down, which is not the fault of commercial fishermen… …”.

Mr. Frank Flanagan of the Galway & Connemara Salmon Fishermen’s Association advised the sub-Committee

“… …Dr. Whitaker said we should be more than willing to accept a voluntary cut in our catch for the benefit of stocks. However, we have endured cuts since 1996. It is the commercial sector that has taken all the cuts in the interests of conservation and stock improvement… …”.

The Joint Committee make the observation, based on the views expressed to the sub-Committee, that it is the commercial sector that has taken most of the pain and sacrifice to save the salmon species.

Chapter 3 Scientific Advice

3.1 Background

The advice on how stocks were assessed and quotas set was presented by Dr. Niall O’Maoileidigh, Chairman of the Standing Scientific Committee of the National Salmon Commission. The sub-Committee was advised, by the Minister, Department Officials and representatives of the State Agencies how this advice was used in the formulation of both policy and management of the resource. Further, various end users of the resource also commented on the scientific advice, the policy formulation and management of the resource. As a preamble, Dr. O’Maoileidigh advised the sub-Committee

“… …the process for the scientific group started with the salmon management task force in 1996 [Appendix 7]. Unlike what happened previously, the salmon management task force outlined the basic management concepts we should adopt. It stated in its report that sustainable fishing can take place if there is a surplus of fish over spawning requirements. That was an important statement because essentially it said that there is an optimal number of fish or spawners for any given river. That was to define the conservation limit. In addition, when the conservation limit is being met, the surplus to spawning requirements is maximised. That is another important point because once the surplus is maximised it may be harvested sustainably. The scientific advice we are trying to give is based on achieving this conservation limit to maximise the returns for all the stakeholders… …”

Dr. O’Maoileidigh advised the sub-Committee of the role of the standing scientific committee within the National Salmon Commission.

“… …In 1999 the National Salmon Commission was established under the Act. It represents the Government and managers including the Central Fisheries Board and the regional fisheries as well as the other important stakeholders, the commercial and recreational fisheries groups, processors and the aquaculture industry.

The role of the National Salmon Commission is to assist and advise on conservation management protection and development and to recommend schemes, including the tagging of salmon and TACs and quotas. That is what it was asked to do. Under the Act the commission, in its wisdom, set up a standing scientific committee, whose brief was to advise the National Salmon Commission and assist it on all technical and scientific matters as regards the performance of its function… …”

3.2 The formulation of scientific advice and the various risk factors governing that advice

Dr. O’Maoileidigh advised the sub-Committee

“… …We have calculated the wetted area of each river in Ireland, then transposed conversation limits for European index rivers to Irish rivers, including the Burrishoole and the Bush, and we are able to populate every stream in Ireland with the correct number of spawners that would be required to keep it at its conservation limit. As we can do this in respect of every stream, we can then sum it up for all the streams in a particular district and arrive at a second very important number, namely, the conservation limit required for the district and the number of fish that those rivers can accommodate before they begin to be lost or, in other words, the level at which any number over and above the figure is a surplus.

Essentially, we have a process that includes a risk of not meeting the conservation limit. What do we mean by that? In recent years the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, has been trying to develop this approach and it rolled out the first set of risk assessments two years ago. We try to keep the national programme in line with the international programme because obviously we are getting the best scientists involved internationally and nationally to get the process going… ….”

Dr. O’Maoileidigh advised the sub-Committee that in regard to the 2005 scientific advice

“… …We provide a catch advice table that states that there is no surplus fish in eight of the Districts, while the catch has to be reduced in other Districts… …”.

This advice is reproduced in Table 1 (Appendix 8) Scientific Advice by District for 2005, with Table 2 (Appendix 9) showing the Quotas by District for 2005

3.3 The development of national policy and management regime

With regard to the Scientific Advice the Minister accepted the advice given by the National Salmon Commission.

The Minister advised the sub-Committee

“… …In general terms, however, I remain strongly persuaded of the case to move, sooner rather than later, to the national conservation limits as recommended by scientists. It is my intention to have in place by 2007 national district quotas aligned on scientific advice. From that year onwards, we will manage salmon on a sustainable basis according to world-class scientific advice.

Let me make clear that when I was appointed to the Department last year, the advice I received was based on a 50% probability risk. However, this figure changed to 75% some time ago. I am still accepting the National Salmon Commission’s figures, subject to the case that will be made… …”.

In reflecting the Ministers view, Mr Michael Guilfoyle, Department of Communications, Marine & Natural Resources advised the sub-Committee

“ … …The Minister spoke in detail this morning about the Government’s commitment to alignment on the scientific advice by 2007. The Department faces substantial complexities and challenges in that regard. The Chairman is aware that a wide range of advice is available in this area, whereas few certainties have been illuminated today”. … …The Department’s commitment without qualification to the scientific advice has been questioned to an extent during the day, but our position is unchanged. The Minister of State made very clear this morning our strong public policy commitment to adopt by 2007 the scientific recommendations on conservation limits … …To reply to Deputy Eamon Ryan, the scientists indicated that if the methodology had not been changed we would by this year have been in compliance with the original scientific advice. It was an important clarification in response to criticism of the Department on the 2007 as opposed to 2005 target. … … Given the difficulty inherent in the lower scientific advice, the pressures being brought to bear and the need to reconcile the differences of which we have heard today, the Minister of State will ask the reconvened National Salmon Commission to address how to implement by 2007, without fail, the recommendations of the scientific advice.

The Minister of State indicated this morning that he is open to all sorts of ideas. Many of the ideas expressed on all sides during today’s meeting are ones we hope will emerge in the process overseen by the Commission to establish a means of implementing the scientific advice by 2007 … … Having said that, the Minister of State will begin with the assumption that a properly controlled and managed, multi-stocked fishery is compatible with long-term conservation. As he mentioned this morning, however, the position does not mean he is closed to different ideas… …”.

3.4 State Agencies and the Scientific Advice

Many of the State Agencies expressed the view that the scientific advice was the best advice available, however, it was considered to be imprecise.

Mr. John O’Connor of the Central Fisheries Board advised the sub-Committee

“… …There has been much talk about the reason the fisheries boards have ignored the science. We have not ignored the science. The science is something that feeds into management, not management feeding into the science. Science is one element we have to take into account in making our judgments. It would have been easy for us to go with the science. Nobody could object to that but we took the difficult decision to work with this, change the exploitation pattern and try to get closer to meeting conservation limits… …”

Mr. Michael Keatinge of Bord Iascaig Mara (BIM) advised the sub-Committee

“In respect of a point made about ignoring scientific information, it is very important we all recognise, as Dr. O’Maoileidigh was at pains to point out earlier, that science is, by its nature, imprecise. The role of management will always be to interpret that in an appropriate fashion”.

3.5 The end users and the Scientific Advice

There was a certain amount of frustration expressed by the end users of the scientific advice in that it did not apply to single stocks. Further, it was also expressed that too much reliance was being placed on science that was using imprecise data.

Dr. Whitaker of The Wild Salmon Support Group advised the sub-Committee

“… …Commercial catch quota has, in the three years from 2002 to 2004, exceeded what could actually be caught. There is no element whatever of restriction or conservation, still less of regeneration of stocks. Consequently, after two years of remission, we want to see the scientific advice followed which will mean a substantial reduction in the commercial catch… …The scientific advice should show what the necessary measures are for each river catchment. The advice will show what is the maximum that should be specified for each river catchment to preserve salmon stocks. Some unfairness would be eliminated in that way because a distinction would be made between one fishing district and another according to the state of the salmon stocks… …”.

Mr. Lorcan Ó Cinnéide of the Irish Fish Producers Organisation advised the sub-Committee

“… …In terms of the scientific analysis, the practitioners are making tremendous efforts at improving their knowledge and I am glad they are acknowledging that sea survival is a key determinant but that process takes place independently of fishermen. The experiential knowledge of fishermen would contribute greatly to the improvement of science. The use of the word “science” is being abused. Science is being attributed with characteristics as if it were scripture given from Our Lord on high, delivered to be the absolute basis of fact. We have seen from the earlier sessions of these hearings that there is a wide disparity of views… …”

Mr. Frank Flanagan Galway & Connemara Salmon Fishermen’s Association advised the sub-Committee

“… …There is significant mistrust of scientists in the industry and we find much of the data relating to quotas difficult to swallow. Anecdotal evidence in this regard does not correlate with the scientific evidence. There is plenty of scope for discussion with scientists on these figures… …”.

As a counter balance to the evident frustration with the imprecise nature of the scientific data, a view was expressed that the scientific advice was very exact but the quota was political. Mr. Patrick Peril of the Irish Salmon Netsmen Association advised the sub-Committee

“… …The scientific advice is very exact. The scientific quota for this year is too high, as such an amount of fish do not exist. The political quota is treble that which would safely conserve the fish… …”.

Chapter 4 Economic perspective.

As mentioned in the introduction, the Joint Committee made the unequivocal observation that the debate must not be seen in terms winners or losers, the focus must be on the survival of the salmon species. Notwithstanding this it was important for the sub-Committee to examine the argument that the economic gain would be greater from the angling and angling tourism sectors than from the commercial netting sector.

4.1 The Potential of the sectors.

The Minister reflected the view that it was not clear where the economic value and the public good lay.

Minister Gallagher advised the sub-Committee

“… …With regard to the potential for economic development of the salmon resource I am fully aware of suggestions in some recent reports to the effect that there is greater economic potential for the State to be derived from the development of the angling tourism sector than the commercial fishing sector where salmon is concerned. I am also aware that consultations conducted by State agencies on these findings have elicited widely divergent views among stakeholders, not only in the findings but also on the methodology adopted to carry out all these studies. Consequently, ongoing analysis indicates different valuation figures for the wild salmon fishery and no consensus has been reached on any suggestions that a rebalancing of exploitation of the salmon resource in favour of angling tourism could deliver significant benefits to the State from a public good perspective… …”.

Further, Mr. Guilfoyle of the Department advised the sub-Committee

“… …As the Minister of State said, it is intended to establish the value to tourism of a change in the structure of the salmon fishery. The Minister of State wishes to obtain a definitive view from the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism and those with professional experience in tourism on tourism potential and its value in Ireland generally. Such views would inform a debate on the possible market for purchasing fish through whatever means might be put in place… …”

In addition to studies carried out by the Economic & Social Research Institute (ESRI), the sub-Committee received two papers from consultants in the area of economic assessment of natural resources together with the Bonner Report [Appendix 7] on Fishing in Donegal. The picture that emerged was different from the common view that cessation of the Drift net fishery would result in a high yielding tourist angling industry. The Joint Committee makes the observations that for a high yielding tourist angling industry to succeed; Irish anglers would have to surrender their fishing beats. The Bonner report suggests the separation of club rods from visitor rods on ‘major Public fisheries’

Dr Brendan Whelan of the ESRI advised the sub-Committee

“… …A constant theme in those studies is the balance between the commercial and recreational exploitation of Irish salmon. The conclusion in almost all of those reports, as well as in other reports by groups such as Indecon, was that the balance of exploitation should move in favour of recreation rather than commercial. This issue of balance only arises when we pass the conservation limits Dr. O’Maoiléidigh mentioned. The economic arguments are about dividing the surplus between the different exploiting groups … …”

For the Joint Committee the most pertinent aspect was to establish, if possible, where the economic benefits lay? It is simplistic to think that by stopping the drift net fishery the inland sector will automatically reap a benefit for the State and this is informed by the necessity of Irish anglers having to provide spaces for tourist anglers and pay realistic prices for salmon fishing. This was emphasised by Dr. Brendan Whelan when he advised the sub-Committee

“… …It would be foolish simply to eliminate commercial fishing without taking steps to ensure the benefits are captured on the freshwater side. For example, we referred in a previous paper to what we call the Klondike effect, namely, if it were suddenly decided to eliminate commercial fishing, this would result in a large increase in the runs of fish into fresh water. There would be a bonanza effect in regard to increased incentives to poach or for anglers to take large catches. The ownership and access situation in regard to Irish salmon fisheries is so confused and obscure it is likely local angling pressure would increase without much increase in the economic impact… …”

“… …From an economic perspective, if one wants to maximise the economic return from a recreational fishery, it must be organised into well managed beats to which tourists can gain access in an acceptable way. If this was achieved and catches were improved in a way that would happen if commercial fishing was eliminated and well managed beats were provided, it would be possible to generate substantial increases in overall economic activity… …”

Consideration was given to the potential of the Inland Sector, if a market was in operation and if not why is there not a market in operation at the moment? The sub-Committee also notes that doubt was also expressed about the accuracy of the published statistics.

Mr. Michael Nealon an Economic Consultant advised the sub-Committee

“… …If a market was operating, Ireland might achieve a performance similar to that of Iceland or Canada. Iceland generates approximately €30 million on a catch of 30,000 salmon, which is similar to the total catch by rod in Ireland. Canada, on a catch of 190,000 fish, generates €190 million, roughly the same amount per fish.

When one considers Ireland’s performance in comparison to its potential, one must distinguish, as Professor Whelan stated, between what is happening in regard to international rod caught fish and national or domestic rod caught fish. This is the vital distinction if we are to explain why such a poor market exists. The Indecon report suggested international angling brings in approximately €6 million but my evidence suggests the amount is higher. While we have a clear picture of how many specialist overseas anglers come to Ireland, I suggest the amount generated by them is closer to €10 million on the basis of published statistics. However, I have doubts about the published statistics because by claiming a figure of €10 million on a catch of approximately 5,000 fish, we are claiming to outperform Iceland. This matter must be reconciled because nobody is claiming that our international or non-domestic fishery is outperforming Iceland, which is what emerges from the tagging programme, which suggests that 20,000 to 25,000 fish are caught by domestic anglers and 5,000 or 6,000 fish by international anglers. If the earnings from these 5,000 or 6,000 fish were calculated for 30,000 fish, we would outperform Iceland.”

“… …Jobs created in international tourism are far more important than jobs created per spend by domestic tourism. We are comparing some 240 jobs in international tourism with 80 jobs in domestic angling. In the case of off-the-coast fishing, the same number of jobs, 320, are created and this can be attributed to landings and processing.” A key question is why, contrary to standard economic expectations in regard to a rare commodity, salmon is available so cheaply. This is because there is no State agency charged with the commercial exploitation of this prime natural resource. No body is mandated to exploit the public good that could be achieved from the proper management of this resource… …”

4.2 The value of salmon.

The value of salmon caught by the sectors was assessed by a number of contributors.

Dr. Brendan Whelan of the ERSI advised the sub-Committee

“… …One frequently hears figures quoted which suggest a dead salmon on a fishmonger’s slab is worth €25 whereas an angler will pay €1,000 to catch a salmon, and it is inferred that this is the ratio of value between the two activities. I warn against this fallacy because the correct way to consider this issue - we have considered it in detail - is not to think in terms of such a simple calculation but to examine what happens when one lets a marginal quantum of fish, say 1,000 extra fish, through one’s commercial fishery and into fresh water. Approximately 75% or 80% of these fish will not be caught by anglers because angling is an inefficient way of catching fish. Moreover, of the fish caught by anglers, many will be caught by canny locals who do not spend much while relatively few will be taken by high spending foreign tourists. One must work through the economics of the calculation to assess the relative values of rod caught and commercially caught fish. However, when this is done, it will be found that the impact on the economy of rod caught fish is, based on certain assumptions, substantially greater than that of commercially caught fish, and this differential has been growing over time… ….”

On the value of salmon caught by various methods Dr Whelan quoted from the Indecon report

“… …My submission quotes some of the figures from the most recent report on salmon fishing, the Indecon report, which assesses the value of commercial catches at approximately €4 million, the contribution of overseas anglers at €6.5 million and that of domestic anglers at €4.6 million. Total expenditure by domestic anglers is much greater at approximately €51 million but the report discounts the majority of this of this because the money would have been spent in Ireland in any case… …”

Mr. Michael Keatinge of BIM advised the sub-Committee

“… …If one takes, for example, the wild catch at the moment, approximately 80% will go for smoking. If one looks at the retail price for smoked salmon, it is now in the order of €80 per kilo. Even if I just take a fish in a fish market, last Friday a wild salmon sold in Billingsgate for £25 sterling per kilo.”

Mr. Geoghegan of the Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association advised the sub-Committee

“… …The landed value of such salmon to the fisherman is approximately €4 million or €5 million if a good price is achieved, as a speaker said earlier. It is significant that the price has increased from approximately €7 per kilogram to approximately €12 per kilogram. That reflects the premium quality of salmon, which is a commercial resource based on drift netting… …”.

The Joint Committee make the observation that the price for wild salmon may have been held artificially low by the advent of farmed salmon. Allowing for this it would be understandable if the commercial sector considered that there has not been initiatives to differentiate wild salmon as a product. Representatives of the commercial sector related to the sub-Committee their experience of selling salmon and the prices achieved when Mr. Ger Caughlan of the Cork & District Draftnet Fishermen’s Association advised the sub-Committee

“… …It has been reiterated throughout the day that the prices we get for the fish are unrealistic and that the plans we have in place are unsustainable. Through our association, we have put plans in place. We presented one plan today, [Appendix 5] through our driftnet colleagues, which will also improve the situation… …”.

Ms. Carmel Lynn of the Traditional Inshore Draftnet Fishermen’s Association advised the sub-Committee

“… …Fishermen in Cork received €15 per kilogram for salmon last year. I heard somebody quoting a figure of €30 today. The average salmon last year was getting €60. Those who wish to calculate what fishermen should be paid or offered in set-aside or buy-out should examine the figures I have mentioned… ”.

4.3 The economics of commercial fishing.

Much emphasis was placed in the submissions as to the total value of the commercial catch, the numbers of license holders and the ability of fishermen to make a livelihood from salmon fishing.

Dr Ken Whitaker advised the sub-Committee

“… …Only a small number of current licensed fishermen are in a viable business, as Senator Kenneally noted. Ten percent of licensed fishermen catch 50% of the fish so it is hardly worthwhile for the other 90% to pursue the business when one considers the cost of going to sea with a crew and the fact that the total landed value of the commercial catch is only approximately €4 million. If this amount is divided evenly among 875, it does not provide an enormous amount. If people are only catching a small number of fish and yet have helpers on board ships to pay, it cannot be regarded as a subsistence occupation. It is only a part-time addition to income that can be derived otherwise. I hoped these fishermen could be persuaded to give up fishing and surrender their quotas… …”.

In submissions many made the case that the salmon fishery was just not economical as earnings for some participants must be very low. However, the Joint Committee expressed the view that it is still an important part of an inshore fishery and has a social and cultural value. This point was made by Mr. Frank Doyle of the Irish Fishermen’s Organisation when he advised the sub-Committee

“… …Finally, there is the question as to where the social, cultural and economic status of coastal communities exists in this debate. If salmon is excluded from the earnings of a great number of small-vessel fishermen, all of whose boats are under 40 feet and most of them under 20 feet in length, it should be borne in mind that €2,000 makes an enormous difference in their annual income… …”.

Mr. Séamas De Burca of the Cork Commercial Driftnet Association in strong terms advised the sub-Committee

“… …We have come here today and been ridiculed by the high and mighty. They have claimed that the income we earn from our industry is only a pittance. It might be a pittance to them but it is a living to us… …”.

The Joint Committee formed a view that there seems to be an acceptance that the debate could be framed only in terms of a choice between sustainable stocks and commercial fishing.

Mr. Michael Nealon an Economic Consultant advised the sub-Committee

“… …As I observed in the document submitted to the committee, one cannot examine this sector without considering the political economy aspect and the manner in which the sector is organised and in which it has suppressed the market. Theoretically, we have an incredible resource. In practice, however, this resource is inadequately managed at a local level on each fishery and in terms of the State agencies charged with its conservation. I accept that great work, as was outlined to the sub-committee earlier, has been done in respect of establishing the conservation

In respect of the political economy of this sector, however, two options are presented as if they are mutually incompatible. It is a choice between commercial activity or sustainable stocks. This is how the debate has been structured for the past 30 years. We now have an opportunity to consider the serious economic question of how to exploit the surplus when conservation limits are reached.

This is a key policy issue. We are all in agreement that the future of the stock must be assured. Nobody can suggest that the stock be over-exploited. However, there is a serious question about the lack of investment in establishing, on a river by river basis, what is the optimum distribution of that stock between the commercial catch and the stock that remains for angling purposes. I am not aware of any study which indicates an economic benefit in shifting catch from one sector or between sectors. The failure to address this question is one of the weakness in the Indecon report.

There is the public good of economic performance. There is also the public good of socio-cultural residue which exists, by and large, in remote coastal communities that happen to be the basis, incidentally or inadvertently, of tremendous cultural capital. Any impact or interference must be restructured with regard to the social capital networks that exist in those communities in terms of fishing, in particular, and the use of the sea. International experience suggests that it is almost impossible to reinstate that social capital. When one speaks of moving money and jobs from one area to another, that is a public good and must be taken into consideration… …”

Chapter 5 Management of the Resource

Many of the submissions and several contributors at the oral hearings raised the question of whether it was possible to manage stocks if there was an active drift net fishery exploiting the stocks. They pointed to the need for single stock management.

5. 1 Exploitation in Mixed Stock Fisheries

Mr. Michael Guilfoyle of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources at the close of the hearings expressed, as a summary to the sub-Committee

“… …Deputy Eamon Ryan raised the important question of whether it is compatible to have a well-managed, multi-stock fishery while aspiring to a position on conservation limits, which acted as a pean during much of today’s meeting. It is an issue we must consider. The Department will take from the meeting a knowledge of the concerns on whether a multi-stocked fishery is compatible with long-term conservation of salmon stocks and sustainable as a position to adopt. We noted the views of scientists in response to a direct question on that by Deputy Eamon Ryan… …”.

The response alluded to a question from Deputy Ryan on the recommendation that we move to a single Stock Management system and Dr. O’Maoileidigh advised the sub-Committee

“… …Yes, if one was starting from scratch, a single stock fishery should be the starting point for a management system for stock that comes back to a river of origin… …”

Dr. Whitaker representing the Wild Salmon Support Group in reply to a question from Deputy Ryan: “I mentioned that, almost since the foundation of the State, the Government commissioned a series of reports every ten years or so examining the salmon management issue. Having read through these, they have usually called for a change in commercial net fisheries to favour an inshore, river catchment, single stock management rather than an open sea, mixed stock fishery. Given Dr. Whitaker’s understanding of the management of this State, why have we failed to heed this regular advice?” advised the sub-Committee

“… …Some of the advice was rather complacent. Ireland has an advantage in that stocks here are not yet in dire straits and so forth. On the other hand, there is a natural desire not to be too harsh on local coastal communities that depend to some extent on salmon fishing. There is a political difficulty in being hard on such people. As such, we find ourselves in a critical situation. We cannot neglect the facts and the danger of this great natural resource’s extinction……”.

The Joint Committee notes that there was not unanimity between the Central Fisheries Board and the Regional Fishery Boards on how salmon should be exploited.

Mr. John O’Connor of the Central Fisheries Board at the start of his address to the sub-Committee advised

“… …There is no unanimity among the fisheries boards on the current and future positions. In the case of the Central Fisheries Board, the single biggest imperative concerning conservation is single stock management, that is, ensuring that stock is exploited on a single stock basis. The board is also concerned about the management and ownership of our river systems… …”.

When the Chairman, Deputy Noel O’Flynn noted “May I take it that all of the representatives of the fisheries boards sing from the same hymn sheet?” Mr. O’Connor advised the sub-Committee

“… …While Mr. Barry and I are in agreement on most aspects of salmon management, we are not on this. Our disagreement may arise from our respective remits. Mr. Barry is responsible for management of the south-west region and is successful at this. I have a national remit because of which I experience serious difficulties with the issue of multi-stock exploitation at sea. Fish from the Boyne, the Liffey, the Slaney, the Nore, the Suir, the Barrow and the Munster Blackwater rivers are caught indiscriminately off the west coast. When we ask about the areas that do not have a surplus or that the scientists recommended we do not exploit, we are told six of the eight of them are along the east and south east coast. That is not a coincidence.

If we want to rehabilitate and have a fair and proper distribution of the fish, we must first cease the interceptive nature of the fishery. In other words, we should exploit the fish in each catchment area by bringing in exploitation into the basin estuaries. That does not necessarily mean somebody will get fewer fish. The quota nationally might not change but there might be a redistribution of fish. Mr. Barry is right when he said there is no threat to his rivers in the way he is exploiting fish in his region. It is a reasonable management system for him but unfortunately for those on the east coast and other areas, it is not a reasonable management system… …”

The Joint Committee notes that it may not be possible to switch to single stock management overnight. We could achieve single stock exploitation but it would be necessary to provide the necessary data to support it. Mr. John O’Connor of the Central Fisheries Board advised the sub-Committee

“… …I should add that there may be areas along the Irish coast that might not be immediately suitable for single stock management. We should not introduce this measure everywhere. We should talk to people in the communities to determine where it can be brought in and how it will impact, if at all, on the communities. We should work with people. This is not something we can do overnight… …”

Further, Mr. Aidan Barry of the South Western Regional Fisheries Board advised the sub-Committee.

“… …It is legitimate to take surpluses in parts of the country where they exist. The shortage of spawning fish creates difficulties in maximising production elsewhere. Fisheries that are in decline or failing to meet targets must be treated differently from more successful ones.

In reply to a question from Senator Kenneally Mr. Barry advised the sub-Committee

“Our evidence indicates that each fishery takes the majority of their fish close to the area in which they spawn and to which they return. Fisheries of the south-west are thankfully productive with clean waters compared to other regions, in particular the eastern coast, and have a strong output of smoked products. In addition to strong commercial fisheries, there is abundant evidence, including counters, to indicate that spawning stocks of fish in rivers are far in excess of the estimates of scientists. Some fisheries meet two or three times the target for spawning levels. It is to be expected that heavy exploitation by a fishery would affect these levels. That this has not been the case in the south-west suggests that the level of exploitation there has not been excessive.”

In regard to questioning from Deputy Eamon Ryan as to whether a single stock fishery would be better than the existing mixed stock fishery. Mr. Vincent Roche of the North-Western Regional Fishery Board advised the sub-Committee

“… …We have the nearest thing to it, that is, quotas allocated on a District basis. As CEOs and managers, we have serious questions to ask of the scientists about the scientific advice which requires refinement… …”

The difficulties of managing a mixed stock fishery were raised and Mr. John Doherty of the Donegal Salmon & Inshore Fishermen’s Association in reply to a question from Senator Kenneally advised the sub-Committee

“… …Mixed stock management may be difficult, like many things in life, but it is not impossible. To take the example of the River Foyle, a relatively small area, there are at least five or six separate rivers entering the Foyle system. Through good management in the past 15 to 20 years, the River Foyle’s stock has been conserved and in two of the past three years commercial fishermen have been allowed four days extra fishing. This model could be taken on board for other areas… …”.

In reply to a question from Deputy Ryan: “Has international scientific opinion provided us with an opinion as to whether we should follow a single or mixed stock management policy?” Dr. O’Maoileidigh advised the sub-Committee

“… …Scientific advice is provided in that regard, specifically for the mixed stock fisheries of Greenland and the Faroes Islands. The language used suggests that mixed stock fisheries pose particular threats to stocks. Rather than attempting to give a numeric indication, they are advising that mixed stock fisheries will pose extra constraints and problems to stock management… …”.

However, the Joint Committee notes that there was not unanimity among the commercial fishery interests as shown by Mr. Leo Boyle of the Traditional Inshore Draftnet Fishermen’s Association when he advised the sub-Committee

“… …I am a victim of some drift netting because I fish on the east coast. The interceptory fishery is not doing us any favours. There probably may be ways around this. Obviously, a single stock fishery is a terrific idea but I cannot see that happening in the near future… …”

5.2 Distribution of Salmon around the Coast

There were many contributions which referred to the distribution and exploitation of salmon around the coast and the fact that they were taken in fisheries removed from their natal rivers.

Dr. O’Maoileidigh advised the sub-Committee

“… …One of the most important items of information - which was alluded to earlier - is that if we tag fish from a certain river, for example, the River Liffey, the fish may be caught in counties Mayo, Donegal, Galway, Kerry and elsewhere. That is the potential the fisheries around the coast have for catching fish from the River Liffey.

To give another example, while most of the fish from the River Slaney are caught in the south, they may be caught in Donegal, Mayo, Galway, Kerry and west Cork… …”

Mr. Peter Mantle a private fishery owner (Delphi Fishery) advised the sub-Committee.

“… …We know, for example, that between 65% and 70% of the fish we release survive the tribulations of the high seas. When they make it back to Ireland, they are caught in nets outside our district. The district system scientists decided on is in need of some clear refinement to reflect the fact that, as we have seen today, salmon are not exploited exclusively on a local basis. In fact, the opposite is very much the case… …”.

From the paper provided in their submission by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources — Irish Wild Salmon Fishery Information Fact-Sheet 2, 2005 — the Joint Committee notes that the highest returns of tagged fish to the country in recent years are just over 4%. The figure given for exploitation is just below 50%. This implies that an optimistic return to the coast would be 10% and perhaps a little higher for salmon surviving the tribulations of the high seas fisheries.

The Joint Committee notes that this view was supported, as Mr. Bob Wemyss of the Stop Drift Nets Now Campaign advised the sub-Committee

“… …Bearing in mind that there is no reason for any difference between rivers in the south east and the rest of the country, the only difference between the Moy and the other six largest producing rivers in Ireland is that the salmon coming in from the Atlantic from the Faroe Islands and Iceland can get into the Moy without a serious drift netting influence. The others must travel around the coast and one can see the difference - 10,500 salmon compared to 1,000 salmon for the Nore, which is the best river, while the figures for the other rivers in the south east are under 1,000… …”.

The Joint Committee notes that this data would appear to be unsustainable. Mr. Vincent Roche of the North West Regional Fisheries Board showed how the State agencies differ from the position as put by Mr. Mantle and Mr. Wemyss when Mr. Roche advised the sub-Committee

“… …In particular, we believe the problem is survival at sea rather than exploitation… …”

The idea that salmon come to the coast at Donegal and then swim around the coast being sequentially exploited by drift nets, as expressed by Mr. Bob Wemyss among others, is not, in the opinion of the Joint Committee, in accordance with the evidence. The drift net fishery is a mixed fishery and fish destined for Donegal can be exploited on the South coast. As Dr. O’Maoileidigh advised the sub-Committee

“… …Fish from the River Shannon may be caught in counties Donegal, Mayo, Galway, Limerick, Kerry and Cork and in the south. The fish from the River Corrib in the west may be caught in counties Donegal, Mayo, Galway, Kerry and west Cork.

In the County Mayo fisheries at Burrishoole, where we have a superb data set from 1980, we know that significant numbers of these fish are caught in Counties Donegal and Mayo, and that quite a high proportion are caught in the Galway-Limerick and Cork-Kerry areas and also in the south. While the majority of fish from the River Erne are taken in County Donegal, they still are caught in Mayo, Galway, Kerry and Cork. What I have been illustrating is the mixed stock nature of fisheries. Each of the fisheries from Donegal to the south can take stocks from any other region. A mixed stock fishery is where the fish do not necessarily originate in the region… …”.

In relation to the question that some of the fish taken by the drift net fishery were destined for other jurisdictions Dr. Niall O’Maoileidigh advised the sub-Committee

“… …We know they do because we get tag recoveries from those countries. If tagged fish are produced in the UK, France or Spain, we pick up their tagged fish in our fisheries. However, at present our fisheries are restricted to a six-mile limit. On a small map like the one I showed to the sub-committee, one would not see six miles around the coast. The salmon would have to come very close to the coast for the Irish fisheries to be causing a major problem… …”

Dr. Ken Whitaker, on the same issue advised the sub-Committee

“… …Speakers have mentioned that it is permitted to catch mixed stocks off our coasts. We have tried to avoid this practice by limiting the sea area in which Irish fishermen can fish. It seems that at least some of the fish intended for Wales, Spain, France or Germany are caught in our nets even though Irish fishermen do not fish further than ten miles off our coasts. I hope someone can investigate how near our fishermen have to come to our shores to avoid doing any serious depredation of that kind… …”

5.3 Management and quotas.

Mr. O’Connor of the Central Fishery Board advised the sub-Committee.

“… …On the question of who decides on the quotas, the way we have been working in recent years is that the scientists do their assessment of the stocks and present figures to the National Salmon Commission and ourselves. We are a group of the eight chief executives of the fishery boards. We call ourselves the National Fisheries Management Executive, NFME. We then examine the science, like they do in the sea fisheries area, and it is one of the elements we consider in making our recommendations to the Minister on what we believe should be the exploitation pattern for the coming year. For example, we have to take into consideration the traditions in fishing throughout the country and the numbers of fish being taken. In other words, if we were to follow the scientific recommendations this year, we would close down eight districts because eight districts did not meet their conservation limits. That has to be taken into consideration in the light of what I just said about where the fish for some of those districts are being exploited. In terms of where we want to get to in the long term, we are trying to work with fishermen and redistribute over a period… …”

Many submissions, particularly from the commercial sectors, referred to the fact that the quota did not match the number of licenses involved. Mr. Conners of the East and South-East Netmen’s Association advised the sub-Committee

“… …Regarding the quota, the east and south east, including my area of the Rivers Suir and Blackwater, have one third of the drift net licences in the country - 240. Handing down a quota of 15,000 for an area with 240 licences made little of the fishermen there. Also, we have 39,500 spawn in wetted areas, as they are known. We are told the ratio is 1:1 and that if one breeds 39,500 spawn, one will have 39,500 fish. However, this is not the case for the Rivers Suir, Nore and Barrow where there are 9,200 out of 30,000. It does not make sense and we feel hard done by… …”.

5.4 Alternative Management System

As an alternative management system the sub-Committee heard a commentary on the real time fishery management system on the River Foyle as described by Mr. Derick Anderson of the Loughs Agency. The basic system was described as an ongoing system of targets which had to be achieved to permit a commercial fishery. Mr. Anderson advised the sub-Committee

“… …We established an escapement target for the Foyle catchment by assessing the habitat types in the Foyle area. This established that we needed roughly 9.7 million eggs to stock the Foyle system upstream of Sion Mills Weir, that is, roughly five of the 11 sub-catchments. This works out at 7,000 salmon. We add a number for angling and other forms of mortality such as pollution and poaching and have established a management target of 8,000 fish. We monitor the fish counter at Sion Mills from 1 May to the first target point, 30 June, by which period we have a target of 2,600 salmon passing over Sion Mills Weir. If this is not achieved, we close the commercial and angling fisheries for up to 48 hours. If there are water conditions which are attractive for fish to come in from the estuary, in other words, a flood, we close the fisheries for 48 hours in the case of a large flood and for 24 hours in the case of a small flood… …”.

5.5 Representation in the formulation of policy

The question of representation and the fact that the commercial sector has always felt isolated in the management of the salmon resource was the subject of many of the submissions from the commercial sector. The Joint Committee notes that the sector has always felt disenfranchised and powerless in the management of their industry.

Mr. Frank Doyle of the Irish Fishermen’s Organisation advised the sub-Committee

“… …Our Organisation started 21 years ago with the then Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, Deputy Paddy O’Toole, to try to get a policy together that would cover all aspects of fishing boats from the viewpoint of commercial, angling and other interests because the situation as it stood was going nowhere. Nothing happened until 1995-96 when the salmon task force was established…”.

Mr. Seamus de Burca of the Cork Commercial Driftnet Association advised the sub-Committee

“… …We have put much work into a policy document [Appendix 6] which we have presented to the joint committee. It is a vision for our future and sustainable fishing. We expose all the warts in our industry and agree that many bad things have happened. However, we also want to build an industry that will be a credit to this country, as well as a valuable industry here… …”

Mr. Michael Keatinge of Bord Iascaig Mara (BIM) advised the sub-Committee

“… …BIM has responsibility and I am delighted to be here today. That development of sea fisheries extends to wild salmon but we also have a wider remit in respect of the management of inshore stocks in a more general way.

… …I wish to add another point to that value argument. In rural communities that rely on fishing, people talk about salmon fishermen as if this cannot possibly be their mainstay. I agree that for the majority of salmon fishermen, it is not their mainstay. They participate in a wide range of inshore fisheries. Many of our inshore stocks have been over exploited and we have been redressing that. If we were now to take this €4 million to €5 million income out of the sector by whatever means, the majority of those fishermen will diversify back into other stocks. While changing an approach to one species by way of conservation-driven thinking, we could damage the wider fabric. We need to be very mindful of that outside range of things… …”.

Mr. Ger Caughlan of the Cork and District Draft Net Fishermen’s Association advised the sub-Committee

“… … As a draftnet sector, we have come here today with a clear vision. We want to ensure that everybody here knows that we want to be proactive in the sustainability of this resource. This sector, more than any other, has worked tirelessly over the past few years to ensure there is a sustainable future for the industry. We work closely with our colleagues at sea in the driftnet sector. We formed a national association and we work closely with them … … As part of that programme we took the initiative to present a sustainable plan[Appendix 6] for the future within the Cork district and we outlined clear and identifiable points in terms of diversification, the development of aqua-tourism, fishery museums and the involvement of fishermen in surveys instead of fishing. We regard all those aspects as a way forward to contributing to the reduction in effort while enabling people carry on fishing… …”.

As part of the representation in the formulation of policy the Joint Committee notes that regulations were introduced on foot of the report of the Salmon Task Force. Mr. Frank Doyle of the Irish Fishermen’s Organisation advised the sub-Committee

“… …That reported in June 1996 [The Salmon Task Force] and advocated an integrated combined approach which would take everything related to salmon under its wing and produce a policy for the longer term with everyone signed up in tandem. Unfortunately, the salmon task force report was selectively picked by Ministers over the intervening period, with bits being taken from here and there. The integrated approach specifically recommended by the salmon task force was abandoned and ignored. Consequently, we have the type of situation that obtains today … …”.

Mr. Seamus de Burca of the Cork Commercial Driftnet Association advised the sub-Committee

“… …There has been much doom and gloom about fishing but we should look back at what has happened in the past ten years. Every summer news reports tell of the Naval Service intercepting fishing boats and fighting with fishermen and so on. Suddenly, it is over and there is relative peace at sea. Why was there such a change? The change came about because fisherman believed, through the task force report, that we were going to get somewhere. We believed politicians were going to listen to us and give us a commercially viable industry, based on scientific means and methods… …”.

5.6 Tourist Angling

The Joint Committee notes that many submissions emphasised the value of tourist angling.

Mr. Patrick O’Flaherty of the Great Fishing Houses of Ireland advised the sub-Committee

“… …Tourism is the main industry in the region which has no other industry of any great merit. The sector is worth €2 billion per annum in Ireland west, the region comprising counties Mayo, Galway and Roscommon. Since 1999, visitor numbers to the area have dropped by 21% and angling and walking - unfortunately we only have combined figures - have experienced a decline of 500,000 bed nights. This has occurred despite the fact that tourism in the region is being promoted almost exclusively around the world as based on water and angling. Every overseas advertisement Tourism Ireland takes out features someone fishing in the west… …”.

The point was made to the sub-Committee that tourists were not coming to Ireland because the Government here permitted drift netting off our coast.

Mr. Patrick O’Flaherty of the Great Fishing Houses of Ireland advised the sub-Committee

“… … In 1998, Bord Fáilte commissioned a survey of the perception of Irish angling in North America. The survey, which found that American anglers view Ireland as a lovely place in which to fish, specifically referred to the fact that Ireland continues to allow people to use nets to catch salmon off the coast. While American anglers see Ireland as a nice place in which to fish, they feel they are unlikely to catch any fish. When I make presentations to various angling clubs in the US and France, I am constantly asked what is the point of coming to fish in Ireland if fish are being caught off our coasts using nets and are therefore unable to return to our rivers… …”.

Mr. Brian Curran of Fishing Ireland West advised the sub-Committee

“… …I agree with Mr. O’Flaherty’s remarks. When one attends trade shows in various countries one hears potential tourists saying that although angling here is cheap, the product is not good due to the lack of availability of sufficient numbers of fish, which in turn has resulted from the fact that this country allows drift netting at sea. I agree with Deputy Eamon Ryan that there is a crisis throughout this sector… …”.

5.7 Promoting salmon as a resource

In the past there has been criticism of the way in which drift net caught salmon were handled and presented and that this resulted in poor quality. Mr. Tom Geoghegan of the Irish Fish Processors & Exporters Association advised the sub-Committee

“… …There were complaints some years ago that wild salmon stocks were not handled correctly. BIM has done a good job in accrediting vessels to handle fish properly on boats and through the distribution chain into plants. I do not argue for drift netting over tourism. I merely point out that the value of a commercial fishery into which a State agency is putting a great deal of effort and in respect of which fishermen are attending workshops and being accredited with a pan-European, Commission approved, quality symbol speaks for itself. The system cannot be dismantled and it would be a pity if it were… ”

5.8 State fisheries.

In response to a question from Deputy Ferris on how many State angling fisheries are leased each year Mr. John O’Connor of the Central Fisheries Board advised the sub-Committee

“… …Approximately 160 to 200 in total. The income is derisory. It does not pay for the administration. We get a couple of hundred euro for some of the fisheries. The income from the best of them is approximately €11,000. That raises a significant issue, one of the single biggest ones in salmon management. Perhaps we may return to it another day… …”.

Chapter 6 A Compensatory or Set-aside Scheme.

6.1 The Case for a Voluntary Compensatory or Set —Aside Scheme.

Minister Gallagher advised the sub-Committee

“… …In recent years the Government has consistently ruled out a buy-out as an effective means of achieving restoration of salmon stocks … …However, no convincing case has yet been made to me as to the public good that would accrue from a State funded buy-out. Those who make the case for it must realise that there would be a transfer of a resource from one sector to another……The critical question is whether the very significant investments in the sector which would be required for a buy-out of the commercial fishery, for example, compare in terms of return to other potential investments in the tourism area or in inland fisheries. To date, I remain convinced that this is the case. However, I intend to take up this matter shortly with my colleague, the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O’Donoghue, with a view to asking his Department and the relevant State agencies under its aegis to apply their expertise in evaluating the role of salmon angling development and present a definite view of its potential within the broader tourism sector … …I am sure that if we decided on a buy-out, the State would make a contribution but others must also do so. … … We must use the United Kingdom as a benchmark. The buy-out there cost £3.7 million. That would mean a figure of €70 million or €80 million in Ireland… …”

The Department, in its summation of the hearings, outlined the issues when Mr. Guilfoyle advised sub-Committee.

“… …We noted also the readiness of parties in response to probing by committee members to engage on the issue of set-aside buy out and a possible market in that context. … …Three related aspects of this issue were discussed today. The first aspect to be considered was the possibility of a buy-out or set-aside, the second aspect related to issues of public good and the third aspect related to the tourism value of salmon fishing. We heard a number of variations on the themes of buy-out and set-aside. Some of the proposals which were made, which related to how set-aside and buy-out might be addressed and whether such schemes should be temporary or permanent, may be put to the Department in the near future… …Despite the fact that the Minister of State has made no commitment to a buy out, he and the Department have been criticised during today’s proceedings for failing to engage in a ring-master’s role to bring interested parties together. Our long experience in the public sector has been that once one invites parties to discuss matters, one ends up being required to make a contribution. We do not believe a buy out or set aside compensation is necessarily an Exchequer matter involving the Department. To respond to other criticisms of the Department, the Minister of State has invited submissions on the public good which might be purchased through a buy out by releasing more fish into rivers. Our views on the financing of a buy out or set aside are that, to an extent, the question involves a dialogue of the deaf…”.

Mr. Vincent Roche of the North West Regional Fisheries Board advised the sub-Committee

“… …My board’s view is that there should be a voluntary buy-out scheme, a matter about which we have been clear for several years. The Department should enter into discussions with commercial fishermen with a view to at least exploring the possibilities for a buy-out. However, it would be strictly voluntary because many fishermen want to continue fishing. It is a way of life as well as a livelihood. Many of them also want to get out of fishing and would do so if they were offered a reasonable level of compensation… …”

The Joint Committee noted that there were mixed views expressed by the Commercial Sector both in the submissions and at the oral hearings. In general, the Joint Committee concludes that the sector may not favour a buy out (most possibly if it was not voluntary) but may cooperate in set aside. Many Districts would examine buy out if proposals were put to them.

Mr. David Neal of the Irish Fishermen’s Organisation advised the sub-Committee

“… …I have never been in favour of a buy-out. The commercial fisherman has a right to be in this industry. We may be going through difficult times that require a set-aside scheme while we get the system back working but buy-outs tend to last forever. There is a future in this industry which we should preserve for future generations… …”.

Mr. John Doherty of the Donegal Traditional Inshore Fishermen advised the sub-Committee

“… …We oppose a buy-out. As Mr. Doyle stated, we would consider a well thought out system of set-aside. We are concerned about the ability of fishermen to stay in the job or keep the livelihood they have had all their lives. We do not want a situation to arise whereby, as a result of a set-aside process, licenses would be revoked and fisheries would be dead as far as drift net fishermen were concerned. Nothing has yet been put on the table from any source in regard to a viable set-aside scheme for our members. However, if such a situation arose, it would be taken on board and given due consideration. Much would depend on the terms of the offer made… …”

Mr. Frank Flanagan of the Galway & Connemara Salmon Fishermens Association advised the sub-Committee

“… …For the past 25 years there has been talk of the need for a ban on drift net fishing or a buy-out of those engaged in this activity. However, nobody has ever examined the logistics of such a process and there has been no attempt to discuss it with our organization… …”.

The Joint Committee notes that the angling sector seems to be unanimous in the need for buy out or set aside in the drift net fishery, with the preference being for buy out.

Mr. Niall Greene of Stop Drift Nets Now advised the sub-Committee

“… … There have been discussions about buy-outs and set-asides, and so on. The one thing that is needed to get around the dialogue of the deaf, as referred to by Lorcan Ó Cinnéide in the last session, is some kind of governmental or ministerial leadership to get us out of the problem. There is virtually no Government policy in existence with regard to the salmon issue. Most delegates today would disagree on the content of that policy, but some attempt must be made to put a framework together… … We have been talking to the drift-net men, although not in formal groups. We have spoken to people around the coast. I would not presume to represent them or their ideas because that is their function and it would be a breach of the confidence in which those discussions were carried out. It is clear that a significant number of people in the drift-net community believe they should exit that sector and concentrate on others… …”.

Mr. Noel Carr of the Federation of Salmon & Sea Trout Anglers advised the sub-Committee.

“… …All that time we have been waiting for a Government initiative to demonstrate to us what is being teased out. Our relationships are difficult and we are speaking of a sector that currently takes 90% of our salmon. We are on the road to un-sustainability… …”.

Mr. Edward Power, also of the Federation of Salmon & Sea Trout Anglers advised the sub-Committee

“… …With regard to these comments and those of the Minister of State, we are surprised that he has not developed proposals. He is charged under statute with the conservation, management and development of fisheries but he states constantly that he has not been told how much it will cost. I could not agree more with Senator Finucane in that the onus is on the Minister of State and his Department… …”.

Mr. Jerome Dowling of the Trout Anglers Federation of Ireland advised the sub-Committee

“… …There are three prongs to this issue, namely, economic, scientific and political. The economic and scientific have been dealt with in this committee and all that remains is the need for political will. Someone with moral courage must stand up and grasp this nettle… …”.

The Joint Committee notes that the draft net sector has been hit hardest by the decline in catch because they had a low catch base to start with. Many from the sector are interested in buy out, rationalisation or set aside.

Mr. Ger Caughlan of the Cork and District Draft Net Fishermen’s Association advised the sub-Committee

“… …In terms of a buy-out and set aside proposal, we accept there is a need to rationalise within the organisation but that need is only based on the fact that the national quota we are given is too small for the number of current licenses. They need to reduce the effort. Fishermen are realistic and they are prepared to work in a proactive way to come to a reasonable solution at a local district and regional level… …”.

Mr. Brendan Long of the Slaney Draftnet Fishermen’s Association advised the sub-Committee

“… …We have spoken to our people. There are 75 licences involved. If there were a fair and reasonable offer, they probably would be in favour of a buy out… …”.

Further the Joint Committee note and complement the work which Senator Brendan Kenneally carried out by way of questionnaire to net fishermen in the South East region. Senator Kenneally received an extraordinary response to his questionnaire and the results obtained unpin the views of Mr. Brendan Long above.

6.2 Cost of buy out.

The costs associated with a compensatory scheme were a recurring theme in submissions and in answer to questions. The Joint Committee notes that the big question is who pays?

Mr. Peter Mantle of Delphi Lodge advised the sub-Committee

“… …On the specific point regarding valuations of possible buy-outs, although there appear to be two sides to this issue, this is not the case. It is not a “them and us” scenario because there are willing buyers and sellers. While we acknowledge that the beneficiaries of any extra fish should be expected to contribute, it is the assessment of the cost of a buy-out that we raise in our submission. Even bending over backwards to be generous to the netsmen in terms of the value for fish and the number of fish they catch, one cannot conclude that a figure in excess of €20 million to €30 million is fair compensation.

There is no dispute that the landed value of the fish lies somewhere between €4 million and €5 million per annum. The debate revolves around how many years of value one must pay the netsmen to keep them satisfied. Another possibility is to seek to buy out only those involved in netting practices that are more destructive than non-netting practices. For example, if one were to focus on drift netting, the cost might be two thirds of the figure we have put forward. If one factors into the equation the fact that the fishermen have costs, one could justify lower prices still. I have no illusions, however, and I am certain that a buy-out, whatever its nature, will involve some sort of horse trade… …”

Mr. Niall Greene of Stop Drift Nets Now advised the sub-Committee

“… …The Minister this morning referred to a possible cost of €75 million to buy out all drift-nets. I have explained to him and his civil servants why the calculation on which this figure is based is totally wrong. Based on our discussions around the coast, and coincidental with Mr. Peter Mantle’s separate figure, we believe that approximately €5 million per year, derived from Government funds, an increase in licenses and tourism, ownership and angling, would be sufficient to set aside or buy out the entire sector.

Many aspects of the structures and changes in legislation and mechanisms for funding require State intervention and the willingness to do so does not exist at this time. We hope today’s hearings will help break that log-jam and get us out of the dialogue of the deaf and into serious negotiations about this grave problem. … …We would be loath to put a precise number on how many fishermen are interested in leaving the industry. If one takes the point I made in my introduction, approximately 50% of drift net fishermen catch 20% of the fish. This figure represents an average of 40 fish per net in that lower end of the spectrum. I have spoken to many people in this band and they would be interested in leaving the sector. At the kind of numbers we have been talking about, which coincide with the numbers quoted by Peter Mantle, one would be talking about spending less than €1 million per year to achieve that buy-out. The money would be paid out over a number of years.

I would like to respond to Deputy McGuinness’s query about where we obtained our costings. We obtained them by sounding out people involved in the fishing industry, but basically the calculation is the same as Peter Mantle suggested. The figure is obtained by taking a generous average number of 150,000 fish for the past three years and taking a very generous price of €30, which I am told by many drift net fishermen is considerably higher than the price they are receiving. The figure adds up to €4.5 million per year and the argument then relates to the length of time it will be paid out for. The Minister of State’s figure of €75 million implies that one will be paying it out for 15 years. Nobody from the drift net community has suggested anything like that to me. These people are very realistic assessors of what might be achieved here… …”.

In terms of equity in a compensatory scheme, Mr. Leo Boyle of the Traditional Inshore Draftnet Fisherman’s Association advised the sub-Committee

“… …As regards a previous question on buy-out, how one evaluates the price of a licence and the fact that nobody wants to give a figure, what I would be afraid of is that any buy-out theorised down the road would be based on the existing catch of the draft net fishermen on the east coast, which really would be deplorable because those fishermen are not catching the fish they should be. It would have to be based on a number of additional criteria… …”.

There were dissenting views on the need for a buy out as Dr. Ken Whitaker advised the sub-Committee

“… …We are not concerned with buy-outs or similar measures. Our view is that insofar as any reduction is now needed in the commercial catch to preserve stocks, there is no ground whatever for compensation, anymore than there is when people must stop fishing for herring or mackerel because they are scarce.

An incentive could be offered to those who do not fish on a major scale to abandon fishing or give up fishing for a period to accelerate a restocking process. There is a very large difference in the scale of commercial fishing as 25% of commercial fishermen catch more than 70% of the fish, while 10% of commercial fishermen catch approximately 50% of the fish. It would be worth getting rid of this small proportion to revive salmon stocks”… … I do not opt for a buy-out because of the stock situation. If it is in serious decline and must be controlled for the stocks to be kept viable or improved upon, any action taken to reduce the fishing effort commercially does not require compensation. It is in the interests of the long-term health of the fisheries industry… …”

The Joint Committee notes the point made by Mr. Gerard Gough of the ESB

“… …The way to do this is through a three year moratorium on all types of fishing. The buy out issue indicates that people are not totally committed to the resource… …”

In summary, if there is to be a compensatory or set aside scheme the question is who pays? The debate has to be framed in terms of the public good and this can only be the survival of the salmon species. The Joint Committee has a reservation in regard to the arguments advanced that a compensatory scheme would automatically allow the development of the angling tourism sector as Mr. Whelan advised the sub-Committee

“… …From an economic perspective, if one wants to maximise the economic return from a recreational fishery, it must be organised into well managed beats to which tourists can gain access in an acceptable way. If this was achieved and catches were improved in a way that would happen if commercial fishing was eliminated and well managed beats were provided, it would be possible to generate substantial increases in overall economic activity… …”.

Following from this the Joint Committee considers that the funding for a compensatory or set aside scheme should come from

1.The angling and angling tourism sector

2.Conservation groups, both national and international

3.EU

4.Government.

Chapter 7 Other Issues

During the hearings and in the submissions there were issues raised which have not been referred to in this report. The Joint Committee wishes to comment on these issues as they are germane to the debate, the survival of the salmon species.

7.1 Seals

Seals and predation on salmon was raised in a number of submissions. Mr. Peter Dunn Irish Fish Processors & Exporters Association advised the sub-Committee

“… …I was surprised the question of seals was even discussed this morning as it is, politically, a hot potato. As far back as 1995, the Scottish task force committee estimated that seals ate three times as many salmon from Scottish waters as did humans. Anglers, drift-netsmen and draft-netsmen were catching approximately 167,000 salmon while the salmon intake of the 95,000 seals off the Scottish coast, whose population has now increased to 120,000, was estimated to be 460,000. I cannot understand why we do not do something about it sooner rather than later given the amount of fish being eaten by predators… …”.

Michael Keatinge of BIM advised the sub-Committee

“… … Seals have a major impact on fish stocks. In terms of quantifying that impact, it would be dynamic, a function of how many seals are present in an area and the size of the stock… …”.

In response to a question from the Chairman: “Has BIM any position on the call by the Donegal Traditional Inshore Fishermen’s Organisation for a seal cull? Have you any comment on that?” Mr. Keatinge replied:

“… …A cull is one extreme. Certainly, we are in favour of seal management and there are ways of doing that which do not necessitate killing animals. One can manage animals in more than one way… …”.

Mr. Carr of the Federation of Irish Salmon & Sea Trout Anglers advised the sub-Committee

“… …We have conducted an internal survey on 11 piers along the west coast. Other pieces of scientific evidence include a survey by BIM in 2002 and a Donegal Inshore survey conducted in 1999. As Deputy Ferris confirmed, approximately two-thirds of fish are taken by seals - our survey produced a result of 55%-60%. Our argument is not about the amount of fish taken by seals as there is little that we can do about it. However, drift netting sets a wall and serves as a feeding ground for seals… …”.

7.2 Criticisms of the Indicon report.

The Indicon report was quoted in many of the submissions made to the sub-Committee, however the Joint Committee notes that there was some critical reference made during the oral presentations.

Mr. Michael Neylon, an economic consultant advised the sub-Committee

“ … … The domestic angling market has been somewhat, although not greatly, overvalued by Indecon for the reason referred to by Professor Whelan, namely, the methodology in the report does not stand up. It is probably the poorest piece of economic research undertaken by any State department of which I am aware or have reviewed in the past five years … …”.

The criticism of the Indecon Report (by Mr. Michael Neylon) was defended and the status of the report was commented upon by Mr. John O’Connor of the Central Fisheries Board

“… …The Central Fisheries Board commissioned Indecon International Economic Consultants, with the approval of the Minister, to produce an independent report on the future of wild salmon in Ireland. The board submitted the completed report to the Minister and advocated strongly that its recommendations be implemented. The Minister then asked the board to carry out a process of public consultation to ascertain the views of those in the sector on the report and how it should be implemented. I visited all the regional boards in the country and spoke to a number of stakeholder groups. Members of the public were also invited to submit comments to the board and an independent consultant assessed the submissions received. On foot of this process, a report was compiled and submitted to the Minister advising implementation of its recommendations. The Minister and his Department are considering that report and a final decision is awaited… …The report was undertaken by a very reputable company which is one of the best economic consultancies in the country. It is not a matter for me to second guess the company, but I did recommend that Mr. Neylon bring his concerns to Indecon directly. This seems to be the most appropriate course of action. I wrote to the economic consultant who drafted the report and put Mr. Neylon’s points to him. He responded to the effect that he stood over what is contained in the report. There is little more that I can do in this regard… …”.

7.3 Problems of quality of salmon caught in estuaries.

There was reference to a problem of a musty taste from fish caught in estuaries.

Mr. Peter Dunn of the Irish Fish Producers & Exporters Association advised the sub-Committee

“… …My company had a very serious incident involving large consignments of draft-net fish that had to be returned due to water quality problems. A certain percentage of the fish were musty. It is reflective of the problem of water quality that must be addressed in the context of the debate on wild salmon. Our only source of the right type of fish for smoking is drift netting. If drift netting were abolished as some people would like, it would mean the end of the smoked salmon business, which would not be the right course to adopt. … …Drift-netted fish do not have the musty problem draft-netted fish are liable to have… …”.

7.4 Ranching.

Ranching of salmon to bolster declining stocks has often been suggested. It was not a major issue in submissions; however, the issue did arise at the oral hearings.

Mr. Peter Mantle of the Delphi Fishery advised the sub-Committee.

“… …Regarding ranching, our operation is slightly odd. We were forced to go ranching to retain some fishing credibility when our sea trout were wiped out. The salmon runs at Delphi were not sufficient to sustain us as a credible fishing operation. People do not get involved in ranching because it is expensive to construct and run. I do not hold it out as any kind of panacea for all the ills of Irish salmon… …”.

7.5 Concerted campaign of propaganda against fishermen.

The Joint Committee notes that the commercial sector, in general, but the draft net sector, in particular, are unhappy at what they perceive as attempts to portray the commercial sector as being responsible for the decline in salmon stocks. Workers in this sector see themselves as legitimate, operating under licence from the Government, highly regulated and to the fore in measures to protect the salmon species.

Mr. Leo Boyle of the Traditional Inshore Draftnet Fisherman’s Association advised the sub-Committee

“… …What really disappoints me is the concerted campaign mounted, particularly in recent times, by a strong and influential group which is leaving no stone unturned in order to hammer the commercial man. I can take the hammering… …”.

Mr. Lorcan Ó’Cinnéide of the Irish Fish Producers Organisation advised the sub-Committee

“… …The second victims, in the face of a sustained campaign characterised by an intemperate editorial in a national newspaper yesterday, are fishermen, specifically in small coastal communities and Gaeltacht areas… …”.

Mr. Gerry Blane of the Donegal Traditional Inshore Fishermen advised the sub-Committee

“… …I concur with much of what the fishermen have said. Some may be mistaken in believing fishermen are hoodlums but that is not true of the men I know. A concerted propaganda campaign has been waged in the press, nationally and internationally… …”.

7.6 Nominee on licences.

The issue of allowing a licence holder to nominate an alternative fisherman to fish if the license holder is incapacitated was raised. It was raised as a single issue and in the context that licencees who have other occupations should be precluded from being able to fishing salmon.

Mr. Michael Hodgins of the River Boyne considered that “There should be no nominees”

However, Mr. George Gallagher of the Donegal Salmon & Inshore Fishermen’s Association advised the sub-Committee

“… …I wish to answer the Deputy on the question of the nominee. I think there should be a nominee. At present, the Minister is putting between €1,000 and €2,000 worth of safety equipment aboard most fishing boats. If a boat does not have a nominee and if there are fish out there, attempts to go out will be made by those unfit to do so. The nominee system should, therefore, be retained… ..”.

The Joint Committee does not wish to be proscriptive, but the argument in regard to modifying the status of nominees does have merit.

7.7 Sanctuary.

This is suggested as an area where there can be no exploitation of salmon by anglers or the commercial sector.

Mr. Michael Hodgins of the River Boyne advised the sub-Committee

“… …The anglers seem to have come here as the bully boy against the net men and the draft men. In every sport, there must be a sanctuary. The angler is giving nothing and is taking everything… …The State should step in to create a sanctuary of 100 yards or 200 yards or whatever amount of water it can… …”.

Mr. Leo Boyle of the Traditional Inshore Draftnet Fisherman’s Association clarified for the sub-Committee

“… …Generally, there is a one-mile sanctuary area between the mouth of the river and the first fishing station in-river. It is a considerable conservation method because, as the submission states, it has an in-built conservation element. We are controlled by the tides and fish a small number of hours per day under a very restrictive regime in recent times. We have paid a heavy price already and cannot pay anymore. Our backs are to the wall… …”.

7.8 Fish Counters

Questions were posed on the salmon counter installation programme.

Dr. Ken Whelan advised the sub-Committee.

“… … Fifteen functioning fish counters exist in this country as well as those of the ESB on major impounded fisheries. These give a valuable and irrefutable direct measure of returning fish … …I would like more fish counters to be installed on larger rivers because a weakness exists on these in directly measuring escapment… …Three types of counter were installed on the Blackwater and Suir rivers involving electrical resistance, infra-red and echo location systems respectively. The Marine Institute was asked to acquire and test the latter system. We did so but have not since made use of these counters to develop a management system because the support required to run them did not exist. We are currently undergoing discussions with the Department on a national fish counter programme to serve us into the future, which we require. To this end we have recommended that work be done to ensure that these counters function… …”.

In response to a question from Senator Kenneally: “When would Dr. Whelan expect them on the Suir and Blackwater rivers?”. Dr. Whelan advised the sub-Committee.

“… …We may restore to service the counter installed on the River Suir this year. However, the problem exists that echo location counters do not provide a direct measure. A signal rather than a sighting of a fish is obtained. The counters must be standardised within a period of time so that the information may be interpreted. It is to be hoped that reliable counters based on this technology will be in place within the next 18 months … …”.

The Joint Committee notes that if Government introduces a voluntary compensatory or set aside scheme the opportunity must be taken to increase the science. This has as a prerequisite a programme of counters on every river. The Joint Committee considers that for fishermen (angler and commercial) confidence in the management of the resources is a key and this can only be achieved when the science can deliver full data on what is happening to the salmon stock

Chapter 8 Issues bearing on the recommendations.

A number of issues were raised during the hearings which the Joint Committee feels requires expansion so as to understand the considerations of the Joint Committee.

8.1 Angling catches.

A number of presentations notably the contribution from the consultant economist but also some of the State Agencies suggested that the true catches from angling were not being expressed. The situation where anglers are not returning logbooks needs to be rectified. The Joint Committee asserts that all sectors must be obliged to meet the requirements of the law.

8.2 Commercial fishermen.

The Joint Committee considered that it needs to be stated that the operators in the commercial sector are licensed by the Department of the Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and fish to a quota which the scientists assure will protect the stocks (there may be a dispute over the advice for the 2005 season but this is not a reflection on the commercial sector). The commercial sector, as far as can be ascertained, are complying with the regulations in place and returning catch figures.

8.3 The accuracy of the science.

The Joint Committee notes there was general acceptance that the scientists had provided a good model for the management of the fisheries. A number of contributions however pointed to the question marks over the data that the scientists had to use. It is a general recommendation of the Joint Committee that every effort should be made to improve the collection of statistics including the introduction of fish counters on rivers where necessary.

The Joint Committee agrees that it should be the function of the Fishery Managers to interpret the scientific advice based on their knowledge of stocks in their areas allied to local socio-economic factors. However, the Joint Committee notes, with grave concern, that a unified policy is not being adopted by the Central and Regional Fisheries Boards.

8.4 Two Sea Winter Salmon.

The Joint Committee notes that, in general, the rivers with the worst problems with regard to stock levels appear to be the major two-sea-winter salmon rivers of the East, South-East and South. Following this the Joint Committee make the observation that the coastal drift net fisheries are unlikely to have had a major impact on these stocks because two sea winter salmon return to their natal rives when the Drift netting season is closed.

8.5 Inequality of the quota.

Fishermen in the East and South East were aggrieved that despite the fact that there were major rivers in their Districts; the quota relative to the number of licenses was unsustainable. There was also the issue that a case was being made that fish destined for the East coast were being taken in the West. This meant that the catches were low in the East and South East and if a compensatory scheme was based on a record of catches then these fishermen would be discriminated against.

It is the view of the Joint Committee that any voluntary compensatory or set aside scheme should seek to encourage its take up in the fishery areas where there are poor catches. This would provide a more stable and manageable commercial fishery within a realistic quota.

8.6 The value of the catch from various sectors.

Many submissions and oral responses put a value on the catch by the various sectors. In monitory terms the values of the various sectors seem similar. It was expressed quite forcibly by the economists that the inland fisheries sector is not sufficiently organised to run a successful tourist angling Industry. This would seem to be a critical issue from the point of view of the public good and what public funds are used must therefore be directed from the position of ensuring the survival of the salmon species.

8.7 The image of Ireland abroad.

A number of contributions referred to the negative image that drift netting had on Ireland as a tourist destination. The Joint Committee is disturbed to note that the figures supplied to make the case are for walkers and anglers and notes that this may point to a more fundamental problem with regard to tourism.

8.8 The interception issue.

There were many submissions which emphasized the interceptory nature of the drift net fisheries both for fish destined for other Irish rivers and for rivers in other jurisdictions. Many of the fishery managers insisted that the fishery exploited fish destined for rivers in their Districts.

However, the scientific evidence was clear that fish destined for any river could be taken in another District. There was a widely held view, frequently expressed at the hearings, that all Irish salmon approached the Donegal cost and were exploited sequentially as they moved around the coast. This was not supported by the scientific evidence which suggested that salmon approached the coast on a broad front and could be exploited in many Districts.

From examples given, fish destined for rivers in Donegal could be taken in Kerry and the South coast. Fish from the river Shannon may be caught in counties Donegal, Mayo, Galway, Limerick, Kerry and the South coast. While the majority of fish destined for the river Erne are taken in Donegal, they are still many caught in Mayo, Galway, Kerry and on the South coast. The Joint Committee makes the observation that this is the nature of a mixed stock fishery.

What was not clear, however, was the extent to which this occurred. What proportion of fish, particularly wild fish are taken by these fisheries? What impact has this on the stocks in these rivers?

It was not clear whether the regulations which brought the Drift net fishery into 6 miles has had an effect in reducing this exploitation particularly with regard to fish destined for other jurisdictions. It must be possible to have a scientific view on this and the scientists should be asked to provide this because of the seminal nature of the issue.

8.9 Impacts on salmon.

Right throughout the submissions and oral hearing it was made abundantly clear that salmon faced many threats to their survival. Among these were pollution, poaching, predation, climate change in the North Atlantic feeding grounds and home waters.

The Joint Committee recognises that the management of seals is a function of Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Accordingly, the Joint Committee recommends that that Department should prepare a report on predation by seals on the salmon stocks.

8.10 The Management of the Mixed Stock Fishery.

The case for moving from a mixed stock fishery management to a single stock fishery management model was unanimous among angling and tourist interests. There were even some elements in the draft net commercial sector which supported the view. However, the Joint Committee is aware that some regional fishery managers were more cautious while some regional fishery managers felt that the mixed stock fishery could and should be managed and to move to single stock management may not be appropriate everywhere.

The Joint Committee is aware that we can move to single stock exploitation of our salmon stock by banning drift netting (in coastal areas), but we cannot move to single stock management, without significant scientific input. This will include changes in data collection and a large increase in the number of fish counters. The Joint Committee strongly urge that a realistic plan be evolved which will enable the move to single stock management.