92001E0477

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0477/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 February 2001)

Subject: Freshwater fishing in Ireland: unsuitable use of appropriations and unilateral attention to economic interests

1. Can the Commission confirm that the systematic extermination of pike in Ireland is taking place not only in the western lakes region but also in Lough Sheelin, Country Cavan, in the north-east of the country, where thousands of pike are not only being processed into cat food by C & D Foods, Edgeworthstown, but the unwanted remainder are being thrown away to die or removed wholesale to Lough Key, Lough Gara and Lough Acrick in County Roscommon?

2. On what grounds did the Commission base the answer it gave on 25 October 1996 to Written Question E-2439/96(1) by the former MEP, Mrs Magda Aelvoet, that trout may be regarded more than pike as a native species of fish? Is the argument put forward by supporters of extermination that pike were introduced by humans in the Middle Ages a reason for destroying the natural balance which has since been created?

3. Does the Commission recall that, according to the answer it gave on 25 October 1996 to Written Question E-2439/96, it wanted to combat the decline in wild brown trout stocks in Lough Corrib and that, although it deemed proven, according to the findings of a survey carried out as part of the Western Lakes Project, that trout are the principal prey of pike over a certain size, no decision to carry out a pike cull had yet been taken?

4. What is the Commission's view of the position taken by Bruno Broughton and Marco Kraal, fisheries scientists, that the culling of large pike principally results in more space being created for young pike and that such young pike need to eat more young trout, although large pike also eat small pike, with the result that, contrary to expectations, pike culling actually results in a reduction in trout stocks?

5. Does the Commission agree with me that events over the past few years have shown that justified objectives of leisure activities and nature conservation have actually been subordinated to controversial attempts to safeguard economic interests by ensuring optimum trout stocks for human consumption and for tourism?

(1) OJ C 91, 20.3.1997, p. 5.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2001)

1. According to the information received from the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board (SRFB), there is no systematic extermination of pike in Lough Sheelin. Each year, a pike removal programme is undertaken which involves removal of live pike from Lough Sheelin and the subsequent transfer to designated pike fisheries. A small percentage of pike are either injured and thus deemed unfit for transfer or die as a result of the process and were, during 2000, disposed of in a proper fashion through C & D petfoods. The process is open and transparent and was demonstrated to many sectors of the Irish Print Media.

2. As indicated by the Western Regional Fisheries Board (WRFB), after the end of the last ice age, the great western lakes were unique as they became isolated from other water bodies and the rest of the waters in Ireland sooner than others. This led to these lakes having a much more limited list of native species which were predominated by salmonid species including arctic char, salmon and brown trout. Over many years through human interference additional species of fish were introduced to these waters including the pike and more recently the roach. These lakes are therefore natural native wild brown trout fisheries and should be developed and protected with this in mind. Other species not native to these fisheries are selectively managed in favour of the native species. The Commission is fully supportive of defending these management decisions in an effort to preserve one of the few remaining wild brown trout fisheries of consequence in Europe. The balance that currently exists is not a natural balance but the current status; the wild native fish must take precedence.

3. According to the information supplied by the WRFB, it is scientific fact that the preferred prey of the pike in Loughs Corrib, Mask and Carra is wild brown trout. This has been demonstrated in these catchments and in other similar catchments in the Irish Republic of a similar geological type. The regional fisheries boards and the central fisheries board have concluded from the scientific evidence that in order to protect these valuable fisheries the stocks of the main predatory species (pike) should be managed. This has resulted in pike from these lakes being stocked into other fisheries in the locality specifically developed for coarse angling.

4. As per the information received from the WRFB, pike in the great western lakes have been shown to start feeding on trout in significant quantities when they reach a fork tail length of 50 cm. Pike smaller than this do not impact directly on trout stocks as they do not feed on trout. Management of the pike stocks removes larger pike (the ones preferentially feeding on trout). The result of these management methods leaves a stock of pike in the lake with a lower average weight, a greater proportion of which do not feed on trout. This means that the objective of reducing the burden on trout stocks is achieved and as a consequence the trout stocks increase. This has been demonstrated as being a successful management tool for wild brown trout fisheries for the past 45 years.

An independent scientific evaluation of the necessity for pike control in Irish trout Loughs was requested by the committee responsible for the distribution of Community funds to Irish fishery projects (the TAM programme for the 1995-1999 period). The evaluator concluded that the policy of controlling pike numbers in Irish trout Loughs of the central and regional fisheries boards was an essential management tool.

As for the comments of Dr Bruno Broughton, these appear to be at odds with a previous publication in which he stated that the removal of large pike from English reservoirs, which were being managed as trout fisheries, was beneficial to the trout stocks. The direct quotation is as follows: there is no doubt that the quality of trout fishing has increased since pike removal commenced.(1).

5. According to the information received from the WRFB, the great lakes are very important wild brown trout fisheries. To allow them to deteriorate into fisheries dominated by coarse fish species would be to allow one of the most important fisheries in the country to fall into decline. Ireland cannot allow this to happen. It would be improper to favour the introduced species of pike and roach at the expense of the native wild species of brown trout. It must be a goal of Ireland and the Commission that these lakes be protected as wild brown trout fisheries and any undue outside or external influence must be controlled. As well as protecting the native species these lakes are wild brown trout fisheries of enormous international importance both in terms of recreational and tourist angling and also constitute a very special and rare ecotype particularly in European terms.

(1) This was in the following peer reviewed paper: A comparison of three methods of pike (Esox lucius L.) removal from a lowland trout fishery. Authors: Broughton, N.M. & Fisher K.A.M. in Fish. Mgmt. (1981), Vol. 12, No 3, pp. 101-106.