The Cathaoirleach announced that he had accepted from Senator West the following subject for debate on the Adjournment.
The serious position facing Irish inland fisheries owing to the depletion of salmon stocks caused by overnetting and pollution.
Adjournment Debate. - Depletion of Salmon Stocks.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am grateful for the opportunity of raising this particularly serious matter of the vanishing salmon. He has not disappeared in the dark or been issued with contraceptive pills. It is simple and straightforward and I should like to start with some statistics. In 1962 there were 600,000 lbs of salmon recorded as being caught. In 1972 there were 2,350,000 lbs recorded as being caught. The increase in these ten years is almost entirely due to the increase in drift-netting, which is drift-netting outside the estuaries of the rivers. The netting inside river estuaries is termed "draft-netting". In 1961 a total of 319 drift nets killed 218,000 lbs of salmon; in 1972 a total of 1,156 drift nets killed 2,350,000 lbs of salmon. This gives an idea of the increase in the catch of salmon by drift-netting and of course this has resulted in a drastic decrease in the spawning salmon, because drift-nets catch the fish on the way up to the spawning beds. I should like to give some spawning counts for a few rivers from the Foyle Fisheries Commission report for 1971-72. In 1963-64 the Camowen River had a spawning count of 800: in 1972-73 it was 103. In the Deale river the 1963 figure was 236: the current figure is 101. The Derg river had a spawning count in 1963-64 of 2,497; in 1972-73 it was 138. The Fawn river had a spawning count of 2,039; in 1972-73 it was 156.
I should like to read from this report—the current one which Deputies and Senators will just have received— a few other counts of fish that go through the passes. In 1966 the fish count on the River Fawn was 6,792; in 1970 it was 3,214 and in 1972 it was 1,020.
To complete this I shall give the drift net figures. The drift net catch for the Foyle area in 1962 was 38,109 salmon: it increased in 1967 to 53,237 salmon and, significantly enough, it is dropping off again down to 31,629 salmon. The draft net catch for the River Foyle in 1962 was 76,700 salmon; in 1972 it was 29,170 salmon. These stark figures show that unless something drastic is done at once, the chance of salmon surviving in this country is absolutely nil. How can one say that? Take the salmon's life cycle. The grilse, which is the commoner fish in this country, rather than the long-run salmon, has a life cycle of from four to six years. The true effect of what has been done now will not be known for four or six years.
However, one can look at what has happened in other countries. I will refer briefly to the situation in other European countries, first of all, where pollution, as well as drift-netting, is a major factor. At the turn of the century in Spain there were 50 rivers which were well known for salmon-fishing; now there are five. In France, the salmon has virtually died out, a country that once had some of the greatest salmon fisheries in the world. In the report I have, it says that a major factor in the melancholy fate of the French salmon stocks was intensive and remorseless netting. As the fish returned to the estuaries of their parent streams, the nets awaited them en masse. They worked day and night, all week, without interference from the authorities. In Germany, the Rhine, due to pollution, does not carry any fish at all, and there is a whole litany of dead rivers, as far as fish are concerned, killed by a mixture of pollution and netting.
It has become notorious—and this is stated by George Burrowes of The Irish Times—that doctors and other professional men, garage owners, mill workers and even some State-employed people are holders of drift and draft net licences. They have been able to buy them merely by tendering the necessary £3 or £4 to the fishery board clerk, because the law said that everybody was entitled to a fishery licence by merely applying for it. That is the situation in this country at the moment. In the United Kingdom drift-netting was banned completely in 1962. This has not prevented the salmon rivers in England from being virtually wiped out. In Scotland, where people are more fishing-conscious, there is still a good run of salmon up the rivers every year. It is only by enforcing regulations vigorously and by conservation of all forms, by cutting down pollution, by having an efficient warden system and by having a population which is conscious of the value of salmon to the economy that it can be saved. Bord Fáilte estimate that each salmon caught on the rod and line is worth £100 to tourism; that angling tourism is worth £4 million annually; that tourism itself is worth £100 million to the economy and employs 160,000 people.
In the late 1950s, the major feeding ground of the Atlantic salmon was discovered in the Davis Straits off the south-west of Greenland. This feeding ground was extensively fished by Danish trawlers and was in considerable danger of being fished out. They took enormous hauls of fish from this ground. The United States, in 1971, passed a Senate Bill authorising the President to restrict imports from nations whose fishing operations diminished the effectiveness of an international fishery conservation programme. A bilateral agreement between the US and Denmark was signed in 1972 so that high seas fisheries would be phased out and end completely in 1975. Native Greenland fishermen are allowed 1,000 metric tons, but from 1976 these must be taken within 12 miles of the Greenland coast.
In Canada in 1972, there was a total ban on commercial salmon fishing in New Brunswick and south-west Newfoundland, the main areas for salmon fishing on the Eastern Canadian coast. The Government paid £2 million in compensation to commercial fishermen. Angling continues on a strictly regulated basis and the Government have set up a number of salmon hatcheries and are taking vigorous steps to combat severe commercial poaching.
The problem really stems from the fact that salmon are commercially worth a great deal. In Ireland, we have the situation in which many people who have not traditionally made their living from net fishing of salmon—they have boats with outboard engines which cover a great distance; they can buy unlimited nets and because they use their nets as fixed engines and not as drift nets which the law specifically lays down but does not apply with any vigour— can now make a great deal of money from killing salmon. The catches which I have mentioned are those officially recorded. As is well known to anyone in the salmon fishing game, a great proportion of the salmon caught commercially are never recorded in order to avoid tax and licence problems. They are sent in unmarked vans from the fishing ports where they are landed by trawlers and small boats to the fish markets. They sell at large prices.
Another problem is the fishing at week-ends. Netting is illegal at weekends and yet it is rampant throughout the country. The situation is such and the figures bear it out, that if we allow this to continue, then we can say goodbye to our angling, fishing and commercial salmon fishing. I would point out that Bord Iascaigh Mhara's role has not been a salubrious one. Bord Iascaigh Mhara have encouraged the commercial fishing of salmon without any regard for conservation of the stock. There are records in relation to the estuaries of rivers which are not very big at the mouth being completely closed up by five or six nets giving a half mile or a mile of netting. Every salmon in the bay is caught. Nobody worries about whether the methods are legal or illegal. The law as it stands is not applied. We should have a look at the regulations under which our board of conservators operate. I quote two passages from the fine book by Anthony Netboy entitled The Atlantic Salmon—A Vanishing Species? The first point is something of historic interest. On page 281 he says:
What was probably the world's first anti-pollution law was passed by the Dublin Corporation in 1466 stipulating that no tanner, glover nor any person use lined wear or leatherwork in the river Liffey on account of the destruction of salmon. Penalty three farthings for each offence, one half to be paid to the detector and ½d to the court. In 1585 the Corporation reasserted its determination to keep the river clean by ordering the impoundment of pigs found on the strand and forbade anyone to put any flax in the ditches near its ground—because flax water is a destroyer of fish life.
On page 288 of the same book the author outlines the fact that the Act of 1863 amending the Fisheries Code of Ireland created special commissioners. Basically we are working under the regulations which were laid down in 1863. The 1863 regulations, he says, had such an effect; and I quote:
The severe reduction of such gear— he refers to bag nets, stake nets and fly nets—
which fished too efficiently is regarded as a major factor in preventing the serious depletion of Irish salmon stocks in contrast to other parts of the British Isles where such a ban was not imposed until later.
We are basically working under regulations which were drawn up in 1863. Any citizen can apply for a drift net for a £3 or £4 licence to the local board of conservators and just flog it to death. There are certain regulations about the times one can fish, but they are being neglected all over the country. The fact that we are operating under regulations and boards which were basically established over 100 years ago shows that we need to take a look at the situation again. We are now in an era in which motor-powered boats operate efficient netting systems. Drift nets are not allowed to drift as they should according to the law. They are used as fixed engines, fixed to the back of the boat and dragged across the line of incoming salmon and collecting everything in their way. We are also in a situation in which salmon angling is enjoyed not by a very small proportion of the population, which it was until relatively recently, but now by a wide group of people.
I have already spoken to many Members of this House tonight who are keen anglers. They are a representative group. They stretch across the whole spectrum of the Irish people. I would say to the large number of salmon and trout anglers that if something is not done immediately then all kinds of salmon and trout fishing will be completely dead. It will die out because drift netting takes the fish before it enters the river and has time to spawn. The spawning counts which I gave from one river in the Foyle system show adequately what is happening. It is clear from this that if drift netting is not dealt with there will not be any fish left for anybody to catch.
I will remind the Senator that he has three minutes left.
I should like to outline some of the recommendations made recently by the Salmon Trout Conservancy Council of Ireland. I would argue that these should be looked at carefully. First we should set up a national waterways trust with two divisions—one to deal with inland waters and one to deal with estuarine waters. It is not just a question of nationalising everything because the water in which the main depredation of our salmon stock has been done is owned by the nation—these are the estuaries. Other measures suggested were: the abolition of the boards of fishery conservators and their replacement by civil servants who would administer a law very strictly, the recruitment and organisation of a proper warden service to look after the salmon with adequate remuneration and the proper staff, directives to the police forces to enforce the laws and to ensure that unlicensed fishing is stopped at once, the acquisition by the Government of fisheries which come on the market and the consequent step for greater public access to the fisheries which are privately owned in this country. The only way that we can get these measures put through is if public opinion is sufficiently alert to the fact that unless they are carried out then there will not be any salmon to conserve. That is the situation we are faced with and that is the situation which should be rectified. I am looking forward to hearing the Parliamentary Secretary discussing the measures which he proposes to deal with this absolutely disastrous situation of the vanishing salmon.
The question raised by Senator West is a very active one at the present time and one that has been engaging my attention since my appointment as Parliamentary Secretary last March. I regret that part of the statements made by Senator West are at variance with facts. I will try, in the short time at my disposal, to give the House details of what the actual position is. It was brought to the notice of the then Government the need for more conservancy measures so far as salmon stocks were concerned, and that brought about the Salmon (Control of Fishing) Order, 1972.
I am sure the House is conversant with the details of that order and there is no need for me to go over them. When I took office in 1973 I felt that the 1972 order was too restrictive. I set down main criteria for the granting of salmon licences for the 17 boards. I am sure that most of the Members of the House are aware of the qualifications necessary to secure a licence. Senator West has mentioned that doctors, engineers and other professional people with their large incomes have no trouble in getting licences: they have only to pay £4 and they have the licence in their possession. Such is not the case. Under the 1973 order all such persons are deprived of a licence.
Previously——
First of all one must derive one's livelihood mainly from fishing and that is a matter for determination by the different boards of conservatives. That is an essential qualification to secure the licence. As well as that one must have held a licence in any one of the past five years from 1968 to 1972. So the position is not as Senator West has told the House.
The number of licences issued in the current year is irrelevant.
The number of drift net licences issued in the current year is little more than 1,000, and is under 1,100. The reason I am not able to give the actual number is that I found it encumbent on me to abolish the Cork board because I felt that the regulations set down in the 1973 order were not adhered to. Consequently, I found it necessary to abolish the board. As well as that I brought in curtailment regulations regarding the season that were not too popular and many fishermen found fault with them. I felt it necessary to ensure a higher escapement flow to bring in such curtailment measures.
We have to take into account that there is a vast difference in opinion existing among the various parties who have a legitimate interest in salmon fishing. One party makes an exception, as Senator West has made tonight, and another party makes another exception. Scientific evidence is divided on this question. The position is that some of our Irish people, over the years, have earned a sizeable part of their income from salmon fishing. I do not think the present circumstances warrant depriving them of doing so.
Some men are getting £900 a night.
The number is little more than 1,000. I understood Senator West to have said that he would prefer that all such licences should be withdrawn as one of his conservancy measures and that we hold over our stocks of salmon for our visitors. Then we would be able to sell them through Bord Fáilte for £100 each. This, I do not propose to do. I am well aware that tourism is an important industry but my first obligation, and also that of the Government, is to our own people who have derived the main part of their livelihood from salmon fishing down through the years. If I had sufficient time I would give some figures to bear out statements made that there is undoubtedly need for conservancy measures and we are taking the necessary steps to ensure that our salmon stocks will be preserved. I do not accept that the alarmist note which has been sounded by Senator West and by others is justifiable.
To indicate my interest, which is also the Government's interest, in this particular field of activity, I have summoned a meeting of all people interested in the preservation of salmon stocks to be held in the RDS on Saturday next at 3.30 p.m. Senator West and others are quite welcome to attend. I want to get together the different opinions that prevail so far as conservancy measures are concerned and also other aspects of our salmon fishery industry. I have met more than 50 deputations, many having varying views on salmon, during the past seven or eight months. I thought some good would accrue from a meeting of all interests having an orderly discussion. I expect some very good suggestions to emanate from such a discussion.
The Salmon Trout Conservancy Council was mentioned by Senator West. I understand that the council claims to have a membership of 6,500 and advertises extensively. I wish to say to the House that I have had no representations from this council. This is a peculiar situation because I am the person delegated by the Government to deal with this matter. It is extraordinary, despite all the claims made through our national papers, that the Salmon Trout Conservancy Council did not communicate with me or with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. I wish to put the record straight so far as that point is concerned.
The Parliamentary Secretary has two minutes left.
I wish to refer to another very important aspect, the pollution question. I realise that pollution is very, very important so far as our inland fisheries are concerned. Lately, through the efforts of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, we have appointed eight pollution officers to cover the 17 board areas in the country. In the not too distant future I hope they will get down to this work. I realise that an improved warden system is essential and I am taking all steps necessary to ensure that our salmon stocks will be preserved. I welcome the help and co-operation of any group prepared to offer it. I was surprised that I did not get a communication from this body which I understand Senator West is representing here tonight.
I am only representing myself here.
I will accept that. I agree that everybody with an interest in salmon fishing is entitled to express his or her views on its preservation, but our main interest and consideration must be to those who are deriving their bread and butter from it. Until I am satisfied that it is absolutely essential to withdraw licences from such people I will not do so. I will not interfere with the man who earns his living from salmon fishing in order to ensure that the salmon will sell, through Bord Fáilte, for £100. I wish to conclude by assuring the House that all measures necessary for the conservation of our salmon stocks will be taken. I realise that difficulties exist but I do not believe there is justification for the alarmist moves made by some people so far as this valuable industry is concerned.
I should like to say—
The Senator is out of order.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one question, as he has challenged me. There were 319 drift nets in 1961 and now there are over 1,000. Where did the other 700 come from? Are they earning their bread and butter out of this industry?
They came through applications to the boards of conservators and the Parliamentary Secretary does not determine applications. I laid down the regulations and it is our aim to ensure that every licence is issued legally, and every person who applies for a licence complies with the regulations laid down. That is my job. It is only within the last few years that some fishermen took over salmon fishing around the coast. A fisherman is entitled to catch legally any type of fish he believes will earn him a good living.
The Seanad adjourned at 9.45 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 15th November, 1973.