WRITTEN QUESTION E-0477/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Freshwater fishing in Ireland: unsuitable use of appropriations and unilateral attention to economic interests.
Date: 2001-02-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Ireland, conservation of fish stocks, fishery management, freshwater fish, freshwater fishing

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/19

(2001/C 350 E/019)

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

Can the Commission confirm that the systematic extermination of pike in Ireland is taking place not
1.
in the north-east of the
only in the western lakes region but also in Lough Sheelin, Country Cavan,
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(cid:146)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.

As indicated by the Western Regional Fisheries Board (WRFB), after the end of the last ice age, the
2.
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.

C 350 E/20

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

According to the information supplied by the WRFB, it is scientific fact that the preferred prey of the
3.
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: (cid:145)there is no doubt that the
quality of trout fishing has increased since pike removal commenced.(cid:146) (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.

(2001/C 350 E/020)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0528/01

by JosØ Garc(cid:237)a-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Economic forecasts

On 19 January 2001, Commissioner Solbes stated that (cid:145)oil prices are lower than expected, and the euro
exchange rate has improved vis-(cid:224)-vis the working hypotheses which were used by the Commission in
November when drawing up its macroeconomic forecasts(cid:146).

How (cid:129) and to what extent (cid:129) will
fundamentals?

these exchange rates affect

the Community(cid:146)s macroeconomic