A report by a British scientist which disputed research on the collapse of sea trout populations in Irish waters between 1992 and 1996 has itself been criticised for a significant number of alleged discrepancies in a Central Fisheries Board (CFB) document.
In response to the document, a group campaigning to save the sea trout has called for the withdrawal of the initial report, carried out by Dr Ian Cowx of the University of Hull and commissioned by the State's Marine Insitute. The Cowx report was published by the Department of the Marine in June without final consultation with the Irish scientists involved in compiling and analysing the data between 1992 and 1996.
The Cowx findings were strongly welcomed by salmon farmers who claimed they were unfairly vilified when stocks declined. Among the significant findings by the Irish scientists during the 1992-1996 period was a link between the decline and the sea trout's proximity to fish farms - though this was strenuously rejected by fish farmers.
The Irish Times understands the internal fisheries board evaluation cites alleged errors made by Dr Cowx in his Independent Evaluation of the Sea Trout Monitoring Programme. The Cowx report found an unacceptable level of discrepancy between field reports of sea trout sampling and the database used for scientific analysis and concluded that all previous reports of the Minister for the Marine's Sea Trout Working Group, which compiles and analyses data in a programme costing about £1 million a year, were therefore flawed and unreliable.
The later CFB evaluation has led to game-angling bodies joining the Save Our Seatrout campaign in calling for "the immediate and unconditional withdrawal" of the Cowx report. The evaluation was completed by Dr Paddy Gargan of the Central Fisheries Board and Dr Greg Forde of the Western Regional Fisheries Board.
It found that a large majority of unexplained "discrepancies" or "missing data" identified by Dr Cowx were not errors and were either on a database or correctly excluded from it. It is due to go before the CFB next week.
Prof Emer Colleran, chairwoman of the Sea Trout Monitoring and Advisory Group which analyses the Irish research and advises the Department, declined to comment on the CFB report, which has not been issued to her. She expressed regret, however, that those involved in sampling and monitoring sea trout were not consulted before publication of the Cowx report.
"Where problems may have arisen is when his confidential report was leaked before those concerned with sampling/data analysis had access to it. I regret that. It was unacceptable that people involved in up to nine years research should have been treated like that." She also criticised "people using the report for their own individual purposes and concerns".
The Cowx report was commissioned by all interests in the sea trout issue - fish farmers, fishery boards and anglers. It had shown up discrepancies in research, in sampling and analysis, outlined how the science involved could be improved and made valid recommendations. This kind of independent report was needed, she said.
"Cowx, a highly respected scientist, was asked to investigate some discrepancies that arose. He did that. His report did not undermine conclusions made after the initial collapse of the sea trout. That is the kernel, but it would have been preferable if further discussions were held with sampling personnel prior to publication."
Dr Cowx's report, nonetheless, had been evaluated by the Marine Institute before publication. Dr Brian Rothschild of the University of Massachusetts supported its findings. "Both documents were useful and did not say the original conclusions on the cause of sea trout collapse should be altered."
Discrepancies in the Irish research aside, the monitoring and advisory group had achieved notable success, she said. Lice levels on most fish farms were at an all-time low and a new fisheries Bill with penalties for high lice levels was in place.
Dr Cowx, she added, had not disputed the Whitaker report finding that infestation by sea lice in the vicinity of sea farms was the factor most closely associated with adverse pressure on sea trout stocks - it recommended various measures for lice elimination.
"It's time to review both the role and composition of STMAG and the scientific working group. We urgently need full assessment of all data collected to date and of recent relevant research, if we are to put in place an effective, monitoring-rehabilitation-research programme which will ensure restoration of sea trout stocks", Prof Colleran said.
A spokeswoman for Dr Cowx said he was working abroad and not contactable for some weeks.
Prof Graham Shaw, chairman of Save Our Seatrout, said anglers were appalled at the discourtesy shown to Irish scientists and angry that a report "now shown to be so riddled with error that its conclusions were worthless, should have been published before its findings had been checked".
He added: "We are particularly aggrieved it has been used by the salmon-farming industry to fuel a sensationalist and grossly misleading campaign which has sought to shirk responsibility for the seatrout collapse in areas near salmon farms and to justify fish-farm expansion."
According to Prof Shaw, Dr Cowx was "apparently unfamiliar with the traditional Irish names for some of the fisheries and failed to recognise that fish collected from the Bundorragha represented Delphi, Casla related to Costelloe and Owenboliska was the Spiddal river" - all are locations in Connemara. He is also alleged to have mistakenly recorded as "discrepancies" fish taken outside the agreed sampling period and also those which were outside the size range specified in an agreed protocol. Dr Cowx had claimed discrepancy levels over the five sampling years of between 7 and 16 per cent.
The review by the Central Fisheries Board claims the level of unexplained difference between field reports and database averages was less than 2 per cent and never reached 4 per cent in any year - field reports were mostly compiled by telephone survey with those monitoring fish and were only intended as progress reports, not definitive figures.
"So it can be legitimately argued that a direct comparison with the database is invalid. Even if such a comparison is made, the differences are remarkably low and certainly way below the level which would significantly influence any statistical analysis," Prof Shaw claimed.
The anglers' alliance - the Trout Anglers Federation of Ireland, Federation of Irish Salmon and Sea Trout Anglers and National Anglers Representative Association - with SOS is critical of the Department. "It couldn't wait to release the [Cowx] report while at the same time it is withholding scientific reports and data from the past three years substantiating the anglers' case," Prof Shaw said.
Anglers wanted the issue dealt with in a fair and transparent manner, reflected in immediate publication of the Sea Trout Working Group's report for 1995 and the sea trout survey data for 1996 and 1997. The group should also review the latest results and issue its findings. The Minister, Dr Woods, had, he said, a lot to do to restore anglers' trust in his Department and organisations under his control.
The Department's assistant secretary, Ms Sara White, who is in charge of fisheries, said she had requested the Irish research bodies involved to look at the Cowx report and the sea trout programme. The Minister, she said, was anxious to ensure value for money and to have optimal monitoring and sampling. The agencies' response was expected shortly and she anticipated "new thinking" in view of the latest research.
She did not want the issue to be hung up on who sampled what and when. Asked about the Cowx report, she said she wanted to avoid the politics of blame. Ultimately, all parties involved had to "work to a common objective; to see sea trout stocks maintained and protected".