THE Minister of State for the Marine, Mr Eamon Gilmore, said yesterday he was pleased with the High Court judgment on sea trout conservation and salmon driftnetting, which resulted in a defeat for 67 currach fishermen and small boat skippers from the western seaboard.
Mr Gilmore said he welcomed in particular Mr Justice Murphy's statement that "the purpose of Section 9 of the Fisheries Act is ... the protection and improvement of a food supply, an industry, a leisure pursuit and generally an activity in which many citizens (as well as foreign tourists) have an interest to which proper regard must be given in formulating any management policy.
Mr Gilmore said he was conscious of the role that driftnetting traditionally played in Ireland and, in view of this, he had recently received and published the report of the Salmon Management Task Force.
The recommendations, including a lifting of the ban on driftnets, a change in the salmon season and a restriction on salmon fishing to six instead of 12 miles, are currently under discussion.
Mr Gilmore said he hoped to implement a number of the recommendations on conservation measures by the involvement of and in consultation with, the key sectoral interests.
The 67 currach and small boat skippers may regard it as a defeat, but yesterday's High Court judgment does uphold State policy on conservation of sea trout stocks, as implemented by the Department of the Marine.
The case, which was taken by a Co Mayo fisherman, Mr John Need ham, was expected to have had a direct bearing on Government policy on driftnetting if the plaintiff had won. Mr Needham and 66 others were challenging the decision by the Minister for the Marine and the Western Regional Fisheries Board to impose sanctuary areas off the Galway and south Mayo coastlines to protect stocks of sea trout.
They argued that there was no consultation by the Department and that the move interfered with salmon driftnetting, as both salmon and sea trout catches were banned in these areas.
This was forcing the fishermen to go further out in small boats to sea, they claimed, although the sanctuary areas were only within half a mile of the coast in many instances. The sanctuary areas were introduced as part of a series of measures designed to address the collapse in sea trout stocks off the west from 1989.
The conservation initiative was recommended by a committee set up to examine the sea trout issue under the chairmanship of Dr T.K. Whitaker, and the by laws granted a limited concession to small boats for coastal areas outside the sanctuaries.
In his reserved judgment, Mr Justice Murphy said the 1994 by law could and should be confirmed as an emergency measure. Interestingly, Mr Justice Murphy said he would prefer to see the problem examined in a statutory inquiry to satisfy public interest, but also to enable a court to review evidence on which ministerial decisions were made.
