Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:36 am
There are some valid points raised here (and a lot of inflammatory claptrap as well) but have we all lost the plot? We should be concentrating on the Salmon and it's survival first, not arguing whether angling or commercial fishing (or both) is endangering stocks.
The reality is that a rod caught fish does bring more in terms of revenue.
I hate to say this but........ If these fishermen lose their jobs so what? I was not able to get a job in Ireland in the 80's...I emigrated...now I'm back because I can afford to be. I lost my job twice in those 20 years away. Big deal. If you want to be a commercial fisherman then be aware that you will suffer commercial consequences.
I'm not for decimating local communities as this article suggests however a trip to my roots in Clare illustrated local community decimation on a scale far worse than a few fishermen being out of work - holiday homes in Summer time, Ghost Towns in Winter.
It is far too simple to employ these redundant fishermen as water testers for the Nitrates but the point made in the article was valid. However as I read the article I see the point that well sure anglers are taking X, Nitrates take Y sure we will take Z cos the Salmon are shafted whichever way we look at it.
I don't know the answer but if it was down to me I would ban the nets at sea for a few years, limit river fishing to a couple of months of the year for a while and proscecute farmers for pollution.
If we can protect Bass (ahem) by minimum lengths, closed seasons and no commercial sale allowed then why not do the same for Salmon?
REMEMBER IT IS THE SALMON THAT IS AT STAKE - NOTHING ELSE SHOULD MATTER