Sir, - Having read Lorna Siggins's article on "State plans for wild salmon" (The Irish Times, May 24th), I could not help wondering if it should have been placed in the Times Square column. The article certainly made me laugh; it contained many inaccuracies and was no more than a light-hearted visit to a serious issue. While I do not wish to take up your entire Letters page in responding to each sentence of her piece, I do wish to be afforded suitable space to deal with some of its more glaring gaffes.
In acknowledging the "dearth of knowledge about the true state of salmon stocks", Ms Siggins goes on to apportion blame for this dearth to rod anglers by stating that "annual catch figures are based on dealers' returns for commercially landed fish, while only estimates are available for fish caught by anglers". If dealers' returns are acceptable, why, then, are anglers' returns not acceptable? If the writer wishes to be consistent she should accept both or none.
The absurdity of her claim that the "drift-net sector is now clamouring for more controls by way of tagging" is laughable. This echoes the line about turkeys voting for Christmas. It is beyond doubt that drift-net operators have for many years been under-reporting their catch of wild Atlantic salmon, often by a factor of 10. I do not naively believe these nets operators wish to co-operate with their own demise by arguing for tags. In reality, in the North Western region, drift-net fishermen have decided not to co-operate in any way with a tagging system.
As a follow-on, the article claims that "figures for illegal catching of fish show a significant decrease". I have to ask: whose figures? Are these figures produced by the self-same "clamouring netsmen"?
The article also states that `the Wilkins report took an enlightened approach in acknowledging the rights of coastal communities against a backdrop of growing hostility worldwide towards non-recreational catching of salmon". This subjective claim that this acknowledgement was an enlightened approach flies in the face of Irish Times objectivity. Secondly, the adoption of the imagery of our coastal communities pitted against the might of worldwide hostility is playing to the emotions of the reader while sidestepping the reality of near-acceptance worldwide of the need to outlaw drift-netting of salmon - a fact that the Minister, Dr Woods, will have to face at the NASCO conference in June.
I have read with interest the many letters and reports in The Irish Times recently on the topic of salmon management. While I did not always agree with the sentiments expressed, I understood the background to each writer's views. However, I cannot accept Lorna Siggins's article as fair and impartial. I look forward to her resuming an objective stance in the future. The conservation of the wild Atlantic salmon should be the guiding principle of all concerned. Scoring political points will lead only to the demise of the king of fish. - Yours, etc., Declan Turnbull,
Save the Wild Atlantic Salmon Committee, Foxford, Co Mayo.