There was a lovely run of sea trout smolts in Connemara this year. Everyone had hoped that the cold winter and cool spring would mean that the sea lice problem would not be as bad this year as it was in the past three years and that, consequently, the smolts would be able to get safely to the open sea where they could feed and grow. Unfortunately this was not the case. More smolts have returned prematurely to fresh water this year than in previous years and have come back in worse condition. Moreover, the returned smolts are absolutely teeming with sea lice, as is evident from the photograph in The Irish Times of yesterday.
There is little doubt that the salmon farms are responsible for the rise in sea lice numbers and the other problems now facing sea trout. Dr. Edward Fahy's climatic theories for the decline of sea trout have now been thoroughly discredited and the notion that disease or acidification as a result of afforestation could be responsible for their decline will be eliminated within the next two months. Even scientists in the Department of the Marine who have been reluctant to blame salmon farming for the decline in the number of sea trout are privately beginning to do so. It is apparent that the Minister for the Marine has refused to accept the evidence which proves that salmon farms are guilty of causing this decline.
Although it is now too late to prevent this disaster which has cost the economy of the West far more in income and employment than is currently provided by salmon farms, the Minister must now undertake to do five things in an effort to salvage as much as possible from this environmental disaster. First, he must give an undertaking to implement the main recommendation of the STAG report which was that fish farms which are unable to control their sea lice problem should be closed down. He should make it clear to the industry that he intends to do this and that he will order the cages of offending farms to be removed at least three months before next year's run of sea trout smolts in order that the sea lice population time can be reduced.
Secondly, he must give adequate finance to the regional fisheries boards to police the sea trout protection by-laws he has introduced. Last year Michael Kennedy, the manager of the worst affected board, the Western Board, was able to employ 15 summer staff to help protect the remaining sea trout and enforce the regulations. However, he does not have adequate funds this year to take on even one protection officer for the summer. Is the Minister serious about fishery protection or is he just too weak to negotiate funds from his colleagues? Thirdly, the Minister must ensure that adequate funding is made available to STAG so that they can continue their research into the causes of this disaster and restock affected rivers.
STAG have requested information from the Minister's Department about the history and records of some of the fish farms in the affected areas but to date they have not seen fit to release this information. Will the Minister say why this information has not been released?
Finally, the Minister might like to tell the House what he intends to do for all those people in the West who have lost all or part of their livelihood as a result of the sea trout collapse. He can no longer pretend that the decline of this fine fish is an act of God. It was a result of acts of man, of the over-rapid expansion of a new industry long before anybody knew what the environmental consequences might be. For allowing this, the Government were responsible and the Government must pay.
