End driftnet fishing for salmon

by supporter Wed Nov 01, 2006 22:26

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0324/salmon.html

by supporter of rossport Wed Nov 01, 2006 23:12

But of course this Mr. Noel Dempsey doesn't care about these protestors just like he doesn't care about the protestors in ROSSPORT ."Let them try all they like I'll do what Im going to do anyhow."

I agree

by Pushkin - VLL PISFI (ICR) Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:11

This is related to Rossport but related in a way that means supporters of Shell 2 Sea should support the drift net ban. Otherwise salmon stocks will be totaly wiped out.

These fishermen cannot see beyond the endof their noses, they want to keep on fishing until there will be no salmon left. Then they will have no fish and no compensation.

Noel Dempsey is right to ignore these despoilers of nature.

by David Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:12

I sympathise with the fishermen.... however this reduction has arisen from the fact that the fishermen have failed to do anything about this in advance.

300 years ago Salmon was so abundant in island waters it was regarded as "paupers" food in urban areas of Ireland and the UK. It has been unsustainably fished before and since.

The fishermen failed to properly anticipate this problem, and so came the quota system.

The alternative... Fish all you like now, then go out of business all by yourself soon once the stocks are gone.

by not listened to Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:33

I agree that the fish netting ban should be brought in I do know that the salmon is in danger and this is a terrible thing, but I think it the fishing of salmon should have been phased out slowly and maybe if the minister decided to try voluntary approach to the scheme Id say a high percentage of the fishermen would have opted for the vouluntary buy out.

by Seán Ryan Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:54

Let's look at this problem in totality rather than just looking at bits of it.

Your average salmon when it spawns, lays thousands of eggs. Most of these eggs do not become adult salmon. This is because of a variety of factors. Some of which include, food resources and competition from other young salmon, predators and disease, fishing and other environmental factors.

Now, if for example, these driftnet fishermen decimate the salmon population, before they spawn, one would think that this would be compensated for by a much larger proportion of the eggs surviving into adulthood. Simply because of the decrease in competition and the abundance of food.

So, in reality and in logical reasoning, driftnet fishing cannot be held wholly accountable for the depreciation of salmon. Other factors have a very large impact. Some of these factors include, fishing on Irish rivers, pollution - particularly from the forestry service and multinationals, and very possibly climatic changes (remember, in humans at least, that temperature decides gender, too many males, not enough females? Too many females not enough males? Very delicate balance).

To only target driftnet fishermen and their livlihoods is to only look at a very tiny aspect of this problem and in my opinion is to not really search for a solution to it. Spawning itself seems to be the real issue here. And this points directly at our forestry service which has polluted spawning grounds bigtime. Multinationals figure into this too, but the forestry service is the largest villain in this picture.

Dempsy, in his race to disenfrancise the little guy, has totally ignored the totality of the problem. This shows his true concern, and it isn't salmon.

by Pushkin - VLL PISFI (ICR) Thu Nov 02, 2006 13:12

Sean Ryan seems not to care for any positive action that will stop the extinction of the salmon. If the salmon is caught before it can spawn then these thousands of eggs never get laid in the first place. These greedy fishermen are determined to wipe out the salmon, they just want a quick buck today and care nothing for the environment. They massacre seals trying to put the blame on them. Everyone but the fishermen who have overfished for generations are responsible.

Perhaps Sean Ryan or the other sup[porters of drift net fishing will put forward some reasoned facts, figures and scientific evidence to counter the report that Noel Dempsey has acted on.

Three Cheers for Noel Dempsey for standing up to this vested interest. Shame on those who cook up bizarre excuses for the tiny number of greedy fishermen who are destroying the environment.

by omg Thu Nov 02, 2006 13:21

i may be incorrect but in cork on the Lee i believe that some of those nets are run by the ESB , i know they had some by wellington bridge and a lot more as you go further up the river but as far as i know its the sea drift nets that cause most of the damage not the inshore ones, plus i guess as they run fisheries they kinda nullify themselves

by Terence Thu Nov 02, 2006 13:57

Sean writes:
>Now, if for example, these driftnet fishermen decimate the salmon population, before they spawn, one would think that this would be compensated for by a much larger proportion of the eggs surviving into adulthood. Simply because of the decrease in competition and the abundance of food.

This is flawed logic. First off allowing the eggs and future diversity to come from an ever shrinking genetic pool is always a bad idea. Second you make the assumption that more of these eggs will survive because of less competition. Well the vast majority of eggs get destroyed by much smaller creatures and other environment factors that have no bearing in whether people stop fishing or not. It is only later when the fish are a bit older and turning into adults would the effect of humans have influence.

Thirdly you imply that the abundance of food is a limiting factor and with less salmon there would be more for the young. This is completely bogus. Salmon in the early part of the life are eating stuff that is plentiful and at sea.

It is instructive though to look at some recent history and that comes from the decimation of the huge fisheries that existed in the Grand Banks off the East coast of Canada during the early 1990s. This fishery had existed for hundreds of years and the fishermen / industry were warned that they were over exploiting it. But because catches remained relatively high they insisted that such talk was wrong. It turned out that it was because of all the high technology and big boats that this equipment enabled them to fish very effectively almost down to the last fish.

When the fishery collapsed, it was expected it would recover in a few years, perhaps based on the flawed logic above or some variant of it. But that did not happen. Indeed in the years and months afterward fishing research vessels could hardly find anything it was so completely decimated. And even now more than a decade later, there has been no recovery in those stocks.

What appears to be the case is that it is not just a simple case of production of fish eggs and that many other factors come into play. On a general level in the whole global fisheries it seems that we have over-fished down through all the levels of top predators, downward to lower ranks and this has changed the fundamental dynamics of the ecology of the seas itself and very likely has caused irreversible changes which means these particular stocks cannot recover because they are not able to reassert their position in the food web or ecological niche as these have been taken over by other creatures.

I think a good example and measure of the damage to fisheries is the amount of crab and lobster now consumed. While some people may be happy eating them, these were shunned years ago and nobody really considered them. They also come from much further down the food chain than all the other fish we used to eat like Cod, Mackeral, Herring, Whiting, Salmon, Tuna etc -all in very short supply now. In others the top 4 or 5 layers of the food chain have been wiped out and all we are left with is the stuff closer and closer to the bottom.

by Seán Ryan Thu Nov 02, 2006 14:27

I hardly think using flawed logic to attempt to decimate my argument will achieve its goal.

Salmon hatch in rivers and therefore their food source is supposed to be found in these rivers - are you suggesting that young salmon fast until they return to the sea?

Sick salmon on the other hand, provide a fertile area for parasites as opposed to their natural predators. Pollution figures into this. The foodchain itself is very significant in this argument but hasn't really seen the light of day in Mainstream media or political argument. Kill all the aquatic snails for example, and you all but kill everything else.

As for saying that a greater proportion of the young salmon would not survive due to the reasons I outlined, I take your point, but I disagree with it. The predators on the young salmon, both organic and environmental would definitely be more detrimental as you outline. But you'll remember that I already examined the environmental aspect of this, so to a very large degree we are making the same argument. I feel that if the competition between young salmon is decreased significantly, then the decrease in this competition provides for a greater ammount of young salmon to survive long enough to get to the abundant food source in the sea. Again I'm not ignoring the effects of natural predators or for that matter the greater villain here - polution. If predators were the only issue as you seem to reckon, the very first depletion of salmon stocks would have equalised the playing field, in that the starving predators would also have died out in large numbers, re-establishing the natural balance for the following season albeit a smaller overall number in total, of salmon and predator stocks.

If there were no environmental factors, i.e. pollution, would the natural predator's effect on young salmon be as significant as you reckon it to be? I don't think so. Nor was I making an argument supporting driftnet fishing, I was saying that it was only a part of the problem and that focussing on it exclusively was to ignore and to fail to solve the problem.

Spawning grounds and the pollution of same are a very significant factor in this issue. And they've been ignored completely to date. Again, driftnet fishing is a factor in the problem, but it is not the only factor and to ignore this is to prolong the problem, and in this case to prolong this problem could result in the dissappearence of salmon in Irish waters.

by A10 Thu Nov 02, 2006 14:43

To end the bans in Norway ,Scotland,and Sweden.Where over a now five year period the stocks have recoverd by 50%???

by Seán Ryan Thu Nov 02, 2006 15:04

Concerns grow at scale of forestry pollution scandal http://www.constructireland.ie/news.php?artID=3786

by Damien Fri Nov 03, 2006 00:48

Even when environmental factors such as competition for food is accounted for, the reality will always be :

more eggs = more adults

you are suggesting

less eggs = same number of adults

While in percentage terms more of the eggs may survive to maturity, when the number of eggs is reduced, that does not mean more fish will survive to maturity.

For example

1,000 eggs -> 10 % live -> 100 mature fish
10,000 eggs - > 5% live - > 500 mature fish

This even assumes that the reduction in competion for food makes it twice as likely a juvenile will survive, which seems like a very generous assumption

by Seán Ryan Fri Nov 03, 2006 18:32

No Damien, I'm suggesting no such thing. You are the one doing the suggesting for me.

I'm talking percentages of eggs that survive into adulthood and I've already suggested that the ratio of salmon versus their predators is the percentage that's important here, and that this is not the issue that's being looked at, the problem lies with pollution, i.e. if the number of predators remains constant, then some other factor must me equated - pollution (I have alread said that a smaller ammount of salmon laying eggs is a significant problem, but it's not the only factor.). And as well as that, your juggling of percentages makes a very unbalanced picture.

What if we are talking figures like 0.1% being the current survival rate and then due to depletion this rate doubles to 0.2%

So:
2000 eggs @0.1% survival -> 2 adults
Half the salmon dissappear and:
1000 eggs @0.2% survival -> 2 adults

My point?

It's easy to be creative with mathematics, that wasn't my intention. My intention was to point out that there are lots of factors that affect the dissappearence of salmon from our waters, and that to only focus on a singular aspect of this is to fail to understand the issue or the problems that have arisen.

by Damien Sat Nov 04, 2006 01:36

Sean,

The figures you have given indicate : less eggs = same number of adults.

This is simply untrue.

In Irish rivers, at the moment, more eggs will always mean more adult salmon.

If one looks at other species such as trout, stocking programmes have almost always increased the number of fish in the rivers. If your claim that the rivers could not support more fish were true, stocking would make no difference.

by Seán Ryan Sat Nov 04, 2006 15:13

I think you'll find that I've not argued against more eggs meaning more salmon. I've argued that if pollution didn't play a part in this argument, that ratios between salmon and their natural predators would remain a constant. There's a big difference between this and what you are seeing as my meaning.

As for re-stocking, i.e. trout etc. Trout stocks are in decline too, hence the need for restocking. This is down somewhat to the introduction of foreign species, but can be also tied into pollution.

I find it hard to believe, that anyone who cares about the environment and our wildlife as you seem to be keen to promote the idea that you do, would discount the pollution angle, at a time when the whole planet is screaming about the effects of pollution, and our failure with regard to the Kyoto Agreement etc.

by Damien Sun Nov 05, 2006 00:43

Sean,

Drift netters caught over 220,000 salmon in 2002 before the fish could spawn. This is estimated over half of the entire population.

I'm sure even you can understand the huge impact this has on populations. It is by far and away the biggest threat to salmon stocks. With such huge numbers being taken by drift netters all other conservation efforts are close to useless.

Drift netters like yourself may attempt to distract the public by claiming pollution is the real problem, however that is simply not true.even enfo disagree with you :

"The key factor in maintaining our salmon fisheries is control of the ways of fishing."

by Seán Ryan Mon Nov 06, 2006 02:15

Ok Damien one of two things is happening here.

i. You are not able to read and just want to repeat yourself until you feel better.
ii. You can read but you reckon nobody else can.

I have not called myself a driftnet fisherman. I have at no time said I support driftnetting. Maybe it was my use of descriptions like: "Now, if for example, these driftnet fishermen decimate the salmon population, before they spawn..." that has you thinking I support driftnetting?

I dont agree with your refined argument "stop driftnetting first." simply because once the authorities have been seen to be taking a single step, that'll be the end of it. I want to see the whole problem tackled, and not in the piecemeal and halting fashion that you've analysed and solved the problem.

So Damien, even you might see what I'm saying this time - though I doubt it.

by Damien Mon Nov 06, 2006 03:53

Sean,

It is your own comments that have made me assume you are in favour of drift netting. To quote your good self :

"if for example, these driftnet fishermen decimate the salmon population, before they spawn"

This statement seems to imply doubt that driftnet fisherment decimate the salmon population. It's not a matter of if, it is a matter of fact. Its obvious that driftnetting decimates the population.

"driftnet fishing cannot be held wholly accountable for the depreciation of salmon"

While this statment is factually correct, it is nothing but a veiled lie. The truth is that driftnet fishing can be held almost wholly accountable for the deprecation of stocks, and that the ending of driftnetting is the key to restoring stocks to previous levels.

Your last post says that you do not want to stop drift netting immediately. I think most readers will disagree with you and understand that the most important step to saving our salmon stocks is ending driftnetting now.

by Seán Ryan Mon Nov 06, 2006 14:14

You have called what I've written: "factually correct," but a "veiled lie," nonetheless. You say that you believe everything I've argued to be the opposite to what you say. Does this mean that what you say is factually incorrect, but that it's the truth?

Do you have a God complex?

I did not say to hold back on the driftnet ban and I doubt that yourself even in God mode could quote where I did. I said - again - to consider more than driftnetting and to implement more than driftnetting to stop the decimation of salmon stocks. And that there was more to the issue as a whole than driftnetting. The FACT that you refuse to even examine my FACTUAL points is proving that you have no business here other than to disrupt this thread.

by Gary Mon Nov 06, 2006 14:39

It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that driftnet fishing is the MAIN cause for the decline of salmon stocks. Thats a FACT. The EU are insistent that it stops and have made laws to make sure this horrible practice stops. Our driftnets are catching fish on the way to rivers in other countries as well so its not only our salmon stocks but salmon stocks from all over the EU that are effected. Now if only we could stop the CFB using the same system in our loughs and killings thousands of coarse fish we will be fine.

by curious Mon Nov 06, 2006 14:48

So is it horrible for drift net fishermen to catch salmon but not 'horrible' for anglers to catch them with a hook?

The main vested interest in all of this is the tourist sector that relies on foreign anglers and which if it had its way would ban fishing for everyone other than those who pay for it as part of a holiday. Just like the good old days when scumbag landlords owned all the rivers and lakes.

by Charles B. Mon Nov 06, 2006 15:06

to catch the number of salmon caught in the drift nets.

by Gary Mon Nov 06, 2006 15:17

I would be as I don't fluff chuck ( fly fishing). Anyway I always practise catch and release.

by Gary Mon Nov 06, 2006 15:17

I would be as I don't fluff chuck ( fly fishing). Anyway I always practise catch and release.

by curious Mon Nov 06, 2006 15:23

I have no idea of how many salmon anglers catch but I would imagine that it is not that much less than drift netters in the course of a year.

Gary, it would appear that your position is that you want to be able to catch the fish and not the drift men! Fair enough but don't cover that up with some psuedo-ethical or environmentalist argument. The interests that have forced this ban are those of the tourist industry who want to make money out of the salmon just as much as the drift fishermen. As the suggestion last week regarding the privitisation of inland waters proves, they have now moved onto the next item on the agenda. Buying the fking rivers and lakes! In the 19th century only the "Gentry" were allowed fish. Soon it will be only tourists. Just another way the Europeans will have of stealing our fish now that they have nearly exhausted the sea fishery.

by Gary Mon Nov 06, 2006 16:01

1, The biggest fishing tourism industry is our coarse fishing not any other.

2, I do not use a psuedo-ethical or environmentalist argument. My position is I enjoy fishing and do not want to kill the fish but to catch it and release it. I spend a lot of time and a fair bit money doing so. I also work on keepint the places I fish clean and stopping illegal fishing.

3, I agree with you on the privitisation of inland waters Its a disgrace and I will be nailing any wannabe TD's and a few I know in regards to it.

4, Europeans are already stealing our fish. I personally returned 12 fish from a plastic bag in Maynooth last week. But thats another stream for another day.

Drift netters are hurting the salmon industry and if they go they want the most money possible.

by curious Mon Nov 06, 2006 16:35

Fair enough. You make some valid points and I withdraw my reference to psuedo ethicalism!

In regards to your own reference to the "salmon industry", however, I would point out that the drift men and the processors dependent on them are/were a significant part of that industry. If they are to be liquidated - along with every other Irish fisherperson it would seem if the EU gets its way - then the very least they deserve is adequate compensation for having thier livelihood destroyed.

by compoculture Mon Nov 06, 2006 16:41

then the very least they deserve is adequate compensation for having thier livelihood destroyed.

ahhh compo ...the way of the future!!!!

by curious Mon Nov 06, 2006 16:45

If the EU decided to ban whatever it is you do for a living, I am sure you would expect some sort of compensation?

Any waste of space who retires from a Board of Directors gets some ridiculous amount of money.

by compoculture Mon Nov 06, 2006 16:56

From today i am a fisherman...dont worry i can claim compo like the best of em...i bought a clapped out boat with all the records...tis worth ..aheeemmmm...well lets say tis a very very expenshiive boat now

next month tis forestry.....did i tell ya i can work a chainsaw pretty damn well....

shure if theres one single thing the Irish can do well its cajole a few more eur/quid whatever the going rate is outta the EU Boy!

by Gary Mon Nov 06, 2006 17:01

I would and at the same time I would not use the tactics that have been used to extort money as the say for old rope (pardon the pun).

The waterways and fishing of all types are slowly being destroyed by an uncaring public and an idiot minister. All you can do is your piece and keep working for the day that somebody listens. If not and it all goes pear shaped it will not be for the want of people like me trying to make things a little better.

I cant remember which site had it but there is a shot of fiss caught by gill netting, its horrible. I think its one of the Irish Pike sites.

by curious Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:26

My last post was in response to compoculture. The basic fact of the matter is that the EU is intent on destroying the Irish fishing industry and it has the full co-operation of the Department here who are in cahoots with the likes of McHugh who will probably end up being the only Irish person with quota and tonnage. Given this, the least the fishing communities deserve is adequate compensation for having their livelihoods taken away from them. Exactly the same as any other person whose job is destroyed. Drift fishermen may have a bad press and there are certainly issues of conservation and so on, but it is a genuine and long standing way of life and its practicioners deserve at least as much consideration as a shower of hotel owners hoping to cash in on angling tourism.

With regards to yourself, you are clearly a genuine and responsible person and good luck to you.