SFFF SG 7-5: Protection of Freshwater Fish Species
The Steering Group has already agreed that it is
necessary to have statutory regulation of the species,
strain or health status of fish that may be introduced to
waters in Scotland. In this paper SFCA invites the Group
also to consider regulation of activities associated with
the removal of fish. In the main this does not concern the
taking of individual fish caught by rod and line, although
we believe the matter of bag limits must be addressed at
local level. However, we propose that there should be
national regulations governing "management" activities
intended to reduce populations of particular species, or
other activities that might reasonably be expected to have
the same effect.
At present the law exercises no overall control over the
removal of freshwater fish by proprietors. The use of
certain methods such as electrofishing or poisons is
subject to regulation, but according to Protecting and
Promoting Scotland's Freshwater Fish and Fisheries:
"…. under section 2(2) of the 1951 Act, in any pond or
loch, where all proprietors agree, a right of fishing for
trout by net may be exercised, and in any inland water, a
proprietor or occupier having a right of freshwater fishing
may take any freshwater fish other than trout by means of a
net or trap."
There is no commercial net or trap fishery in Scotland
for any freshwater species other than eels, and their
exploitation should in any event be controlled in the light
of the decline in European populations. With that
exception, netting or trapping under the provisions of
section 2(2) only takes place either to reduce populations
of particular species, or for the purpose of scientific
surveys.
Although somewhat less common than it was a few years
ago, culling of various species still takes place on many
waters in Scotland. In a few instances this is directed
towards grayling or even brown trout, but the main target
is coarse fish, especially pike. Generally, such activities
are carried out without the benefit of objective scientific
advice, and they rarely have any foundation in sound
management practice. For instance, pike culls tend just to
result in better-fed mink and cormorants with little or no
net benefit to stocks of other fish species. At worst, when
the larger predators are removed there can be a short-term
explosion of their smaller brethren, which generally has a
negative impact on juvenile populations of other species.
In addition, the method of choice for culling is often to
use gill nets, which frequently results in a significant
by-catch of other fish, diving birds and aquatic mammals -
often including protected species.
Ill-informed and indiscriminate culling has no more of a
place in fisheries management than ill-informed and
indiscriminate stocking. As noted above, the Steering Group
has accepted the arguments in favour of regulating the
latter. It would be remiss not also to regulate the
former.
We are not suggesting that bona fide scientific survey
work should be unreasonably constrained by any such
regulation. If we are to have sustainable recreational
fisheries based on healthy stocks of wild fish it is
essential to collect population data. Among other things
this necessitates sampling the existing stock from time to
time, and in some circumstances that will include the use
of lethal methods of capture or the killing of some fish to
enable carcases to be dissected. However, if removing fish
for scientific study were to be left unregulated it would
provide a loophole by which controls over culling could
readily be subverted. In addition, there is evidence to
suggest that lethal sampling methods - especially gill nets
- are sometimes adopted unnecessarily. Whether this stems
from an unduly casual lack of concern for the species being
sampled, or takes place with the covert aim of reducing
stocks on the pretext of gathering data is open to
speculation. A system of regulation which included
independent scrutiny of sampling protocols could ensure
that mortalities are kept to a minimum and, perhaps almost
as important, could reassure anglers that bona fide
population surveys do not present a threat to their
sport.
There are other circumstances in which carefully
controlled and highly selective removals may also be
acceptable. For instance, to isolate an outbreak of
infection such as GS or to contain the spread of
newly-introduced invasive species such as signal crayfish.
Steering Group colleagues may be able to suggest further
examples; but in any event the key principle must be that
culling or removal of established species should be subject
to regulation involving a similar process of objective
analysis of the risks and benefits as has already been put
forward in connection with movements and introductions. We
would be happy to contribute further suggestions as to the
fine detail of such a regulatory process once the principle
has been agreed.
SFCA
22nd February 2005