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

22^nd February 2005