strategy for the development of the eel fishery in irelandoar.marine.ie/bitstream/10793/183/1/no19...

ISSN 0332-4338

Strategy for the development of the eel fishery in Ireland

by

CHRISTOPHER MORIARTYMARINE INSTITUTE, FISHERIES RESEARCH CENTRE, ABBOTSTOWN, DUBLIN 15

Fisheries Bulletin No. 19 – 1999

Dublin

The MARINE INSTITUTE, 80 HARCOURT STREET, DUBLIN 21999

iii

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

RECOMMENDATIONS 3

1 INTRODUCTION 5

2 BIOLOGY 7

2.1 Distribution 72.2 Life history 7

3 THE FISHERY 9

3.1 Glass eel and elver 93.2 Yellow eel 93.3 Silver eel 9

4 MANAGEMENT and MARKETING 11

4.1 Legislation 114.2 Bye-laws 144.3 Enforcement 154.4 Current management measures 154.5 Views of Central and Regional Fisheries Boards 164.6 Marketing 194.7 Processing 21

5 DEVELOPMENT 22

5.1 National and Regional Development 225.2 Personnel 225.3 Glass eel and elver development 225.4 Yellow eel fishery 225.5 Silver eel fishery 235.6 Major studies 235.7 Development and maintenance programme 23

6 REGIONAL STRATEGIES 26

6.1 Eastern Region 266.2 Southern Region 286.3 Southwestern Region 306.4 Shannon Region 316.5 Western Region 336.6 Northwestern Region 356.7 Northern Region 366.8 The Foyle 38

iv

7 AQUACULTURE 39

8 NATIONAL STRATEGY 40

8.1 Costs and benefits 408.2 Glass eel and elver 408.3 Yellow eel 418.4 Silver eel 418.5 Management proposals 42

9 ALL-IRELAND PERMANENT COMMISSION 45

10 REFERENCES 46

C. Moriarty: Strategy for the development of the eel fishery in Ireland

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY(Heading numbers refer to Chapters)

1. Basic strategy

The strategy is based on techniques known tobe successful in Northern Ireland and else-where in Europe. It will increase the nationalyield of wild-caught eel by a factor of four,from 250 to 1,000 t/year. A parallel develop-ment of intensive culture could yield a further1,000 t so that, with 1,000 t from NorthernIreland, an annual yield in the order of 3,000 tfor the whole of Ireland can be achieved. Asupply of this magnitude will provide the ba-sis for a processing industry and bring aboutsubstantial cost reduction in handling andmarketing, thereby maximising profits.

2. Biology

The unique life cycle of the European eel isoutlined, with particular reference to its sin-gle oceanic breeding place and the random re-turn to continental waters of the progeny ofthe spawners.

3. The fishery

Fishing for glass eel and elver is carried outunder special authorisation. The catch is usedlargely for stocking open waters and, to alesser extent, as seed for aquaculture. Yelloweel are caught mainly in lakes either by fykenet, which is subject to strict regulation, or bylong-line which cannot be satisfactorily con-trolled under present legislation. Silver eelcapture, except at designated fisheries operat-ed between 1936 and 1938, is also subject toauthorisation. The officially reported catch isin the order of 100 t/year. An estimate of anactual catch of 250 t is widely accepted.

4. Management and marketing

Primary legislation exists which provides forsatisfactory control of all eel fishing exceptthe use of the long-line for yellow eel and theerection of fixed engines for silver eel. Mar-keting, subject to a statutory dealer’s licence,

takes place on an ad hoc basis and there isgreat scope for rationalisation and develop-ment. Processing is confined to a very smallnumber of cottage-level installations andshould be developed.

5. Development

Details of a national development scheme areprovided. The scheme envisages State-fund-ed stocking, research and monitoring.

6. Regional strategies

Details of the different approaches recom-mended for each Fisheries Region are given,together with estimates of the quantities of el-ver required for each major river basin.

7. Aquaculture

Aquaculture requires the capture of wildglass eel or elver as seed. The techniques arewell developed and the demand excellent.The capture fishery would benefit from ex-pansion of intensive culture.

8. National strategy

The calculated cost of operating an initial10-year research and development plan isequal to the value of a single year’s enhancedyield at the end of the 10-year period. What-ever research study may be adopted, the pro-vision of funding for a nationwideprogramme of elver capture and transfershould be put in hand without delay on the ba-sis of the internationally agreed stocking lev-els.

9. All-Ireland permanent commission

Expertise on the eel is too limited for the spe-cies to be managed effectively on a regionalbasis. The structure of an all-Ireland Com-mission to centralise management in both ju-risdictions is outlined.


3

RECOMMENDATIONS

1 Glass eel and elver

Control of glass eel and elver capture shouldbe confined to the Regional Fisheries Boardswhich would purchase and distribute thecatch from authorised fishers. The first prior-ity is for the stocking of natural waters tomeet the calculated requirements, the secondis for aquaculture and the third for commer-cial sale.

2 Yellow eel

Legislation is urgently needed to require au-thorisation for long-line fishing and to desig-nate the eel pot as a scheduled engine. Amoratorium should be placed on new author-isations for yellow eel except where positiveresults of stock enhancement become appar-ent. Future yellow eel authorisations shouldbe distributed according to designated fishingzones. Waters deemed unlikely to be the basisof profitable eel fisheries should be listed anddeclared sanctuary areas. A nationwide sizelimit of 35 cm for yellow eel is recommend-ed.

3 Silver eel

In the interests of conserving spawning stockand of protecting the interests of existing sil-ver eel fishers, a 10-year moratorium on neweel weirs is proposed. Proprietors of existingfisheries should not be permitted to preventthe emplacement of additional weirs for anindefinite period and a maximum of ten yearsis suggested.

Significant mortality of silver eel in turbineshas been observed, but not quantified. As-sessment should be made of its intensity andthe need for remedial measures.

4 Liaison between fishers and RegionalBoards

The formation of eel fishers’ associations foreach Region would enhance the current un-satisfactory arrangement whereby the inter-

ests of the eel fishing community arerepresented by a single Board member.

5 Five-year plans

The first five-year plan would include stockenhancement by glass eel and elver transfer, adetailed stock assessment exercise and a mor-atorium on new fishing authorisations. On thebasis of the results of the first quinquennium,modification of the moratorium could be con-sidered. The second 5-year plan would con-tinue stock enhancement and monitoringaccording to a programme developed underthe first plan.

6 Designation of fishing and sanctuarywaters

Based on the results of the stock assessments,lakes should be designated as suitable forcommercial fishing or be set aside as sanctu-aries for spawner development and sport fish-ing. All rivers except the Barrow should bedeclared sanctuaries.

7 Research and monitoring

Stock assessment in all lakes with a good po-tential is a basic requirement and must be fol-lowed by a monitoring programme. At leastone full-time permanent scientist should beappointed as programme director.

8 Aquaculture

Provided the wild stock is safeguarded the de-velopment of eel culture should be encour-aged.

9 Marketing

A centralised marketing system with a mech-anism for quality control should be estab-lished.

10 Processing

The export of live eel should be substituted bythe development of a processing industry.

Fisheries Bulletin (Dublin) 19, 1999

4

11 Permanent Commission

It is strongly recommended that an all-Irelandauthority be established to supervise the im-plementation of the strategy.

12 Funding

Because of the current poor stocks, the longlead-in period to full production and the prob-lems of ownership, full funding by the Gov-ernment is envisaged.


5

1 INTRODUCTION

In the course of a reply to a ParliamentaryQuestion on eel in February 1997, the Minis-ter stated that ‘there is considerable potentialfor development of the fishery and an inte-grated development strategy plan is beingformulated’. The Marine Institute and otherbodies were asked by the Department of theMarine to prepare a submission. The materialwhich follows is based on the author’s workas a biologist, first in the fisheries service ofthe Government and, subsequently in the Ma-rine Institute. The main sources are:• research work on eel which has been in

progress since 1959• discussions with the Chief Officers of the

Regional Fisheries Boards• formal meetings with Regional Fisheries

Boards• views of eel fishers gathered in person to

person meetings• reports presented at eel working parties of

the International Council for the Explora-tion of the Sea and the European InlandFisheries Advisory Commission, 1970 topresent date

• reports of the EU Concerted ActionA94-1939 Enhancement of the Europeaneel fishery and conservation of the species(Moriarty, 1996; Moriarty and Dekker,1997)

• proceedings of the National Eel Workshopheld in 1998 (Watson et al., 1999).

This work is based on a study of the eel in Ire-land over a period of 40 years, as the majorpart of the author’s official duties as a scien-tist in the Fisheries Service. Its views are sup-ported by reference to international work,mainly European but extending to the fourother continents. The latter was greatly facil-itated by the European Inland Fisheries Advi-sory Commission and by the InternationalCouncil for the Exploration of the Sea, in thecourse of more than 30 years. All the viewsexpressed and conclusions drawn have at onetime or another been presented in the interna-tional forum and have found acceptance.

The effectiveness of stocking with glass eeland elver as a management tool was first es-tablished in Germany in the 1890s. The au-thor’s studies in Ireland in the 1960s providedthe scientific explanation of this success anddemonstrated clearly that it could be effec-tively applied throughout the greater part ofIrish lakes. Subsequent research and studyboth in Ireland and abroad, by the author andothers, have served to increase the precisionof the earlier work and to confirm the originalconclusions.

The long period and apparently high cost ofmaximising the resource, together with thelikelihood that ownership problems will per-sist, preclude any possibility of attracting pri-vate investment. In such a situation, as withvirtually all development of capture fisheriesin Ireland, the Exchequer is the only practica-ble source of funding. An important factorwhen this is considered is that more than 90%of the cost is manpower-related, involvingsubstantial employment in the developmentstages. The study has also shown that the de-velopment costs over the 10-year non-pro-ductive period are little more than theearnings expected from the first year of en-hanced operation. Few, if any, undertakingsin fisheries’ management have ever claimedsuch a high return on investment.

Lough Neagh has long been known as one ofthe world’s greatest producers of eel. In 1963,an improved management regime was estab-lished in Lough Neagh (Kennedy, 1999). By1982 it was evident that an annual yield in theorder of 700 t, or 20 kg/ha, had been achievedand sustained. Over the following 17 years,this sustainability was clearly demonstrated.

In 1959 the Fisheries Division of the Depart-ment of Lands initiated a study to discoverwhy eel yield elsewhere in Ireland was verymuch smaller. This initiative led to a studyprogramme comprising extensive surveywork by fyke netting together with silver eel


6

monitoring. It included observations made intwo seasons in Lough Neagh and drew thefollowing conclusions (Moriarty, 1982a,1988; Moriarty and Reynolds, 1997):

• Growth rates of eel from many Irish wa-ters are similar to those of Lough Neagh.

• Greater population densities have been ob-served elsewhere in Ireland, therefore, ca-pacity exists for greater productivity thanobserved in Lough Neagh.

• Greater yields than Lough Neagh’s areknown in Europe, showing that the valueof 20 kg/ha is substantially less than thehighest attainable.

• A substantial area of Lough Neagh doesnot produce good eel stocks because thebed is sandy; the sustained yield of 20 kg/ha calculated for the whole lake, therefore,indicates a greater yield per unit area frommuddy regions of the lake.

• Many other species of fish, includingtrout, perch, pike, roach and pollan, thrivein Lough Neagh; their abundance impliesthat they are not adversely affected by thedense eel population.

• Bycatch in the fyke nets is so small that itposes no threat to stocks of other fish spe-cies.

The studies, therefore, have yielded over-whelming evidence that other lakes can pro-duce equal or greater quantities than LoughNeagh without impinging on other fish spe-cies. In the Republic, an area of 500 km2 ofsuitable lakes is available, from which a sus-tainable yield of 1,000 t/year could be estab-lished. Employment in the capture fisheryalone would be between 500 and 1,000 per-sons from May to September.

The current value of the fishery in the State,based on officially recorded catches, lies be-tween £250,000 and £500,000. However, it isknown that the records of legitimate catchesare incomplete and that there is a substantialelement of illegal landings. An estimate of acatch of 250 t/year, value £1,250,000, iswidely accepted.

The price obtainable for quality eel is £5/kg,making an initial value of £5 million for theyield which can be attained in the Republic.The total achievable yield of the capture fish-ery for Ireland north and south approaches2,000 t to which 1,000 t of cultured eel mightbe added. A supply of this magnitude wouldbe sufficient to establish a processing indus-try with added value in the order of threetimes that of the wet weight. The annual valueof a developed and properly managed Irisheel industry should, therefore, be taken to liein the region of £60 million.

Market performance at present may not beencouraging but there are a number of rea-sons for the expectation that a major improve-ment is likely in the course of the next 10years. Above all, the eel is a luxury productwith a limited supply base. Increasingly highstandards of living are certain to lead to in-creased demands for top quality food andthere is no reason to believe that the eel canfail to hold its place amongst the most highlypriced species of fish. It must be rememberedthat the current high prices are paid in the vir-tual absence of any marketing effort.

This paper in Chapter 2 gives the essentialfacts of eel biology on which current manage-ment and future development of the fisherydepend. Chapters 3 and 4 describe the presentstate of the fishery, its management and mar-keting practice. Chapter 5 gives the method-ology for development of the fishery andChapter 6 sets out the potential for each Fish-ery Region, based on the nature and distribu-tion of eel-fishing waters. Chapter 7 gives anoutline of eel culture, which demands a dif-ferent approach from the capture fishery.Chapter 8 makes an estimate of the costs andbenefits of the development and makes rec-ommendations for the National Strategy andChapter 9 proposes the establishment of anall-Ireland authority. Conclusions based onthe foregoing are summarised on page 3.


7

2 BIOLOGY

2.1 Distribution

The European eel Anguilla anguilla is effec-tively the only species of freshwater eel foundin Europe. Small numbers of American eelAnguilla rostrata have been identified inScandinavian countries but their presence hasno impact on management strategies. All sci-entific evidence supports the theory that theeel has a single breeding place in the SargassoSea. The adult breeds only at the end of its lifeand no previous spawners have ever beenidentified. There is no evidence whatever thateel home to the watercourses or even thecountries in which they developed. The nu-merous studies made of eel anatomy and ge-netics support the view that distribution israndom. Conservation of the breeding stock,therefore, is a pan-European concern.

In Ireland, eel are found in nearly all water-courses. Except where management schemesare in operation, the greatest numbers arefound in the lower reaches of river and lakesystems. Growth rate is poor in acid, good inlimestone waters.

2.2 Life history

The essential phases of the life history of theeel are:

Glass eel: the youngest life stage inhabitinginshore and estuarine waters, it has no skinpigment so that the body is transparent andglass-like. The glass eel does not feed. Glasseel begin to enter river estuaries during De-cember with numbers greatly increasing inearly spring. The numbers are immense, inthe order of many millions in the major estu-aries. An unknown proportion of these re-main in the estuaries and either die there orgrow to adulthood. The remainder migrate to-wards fresh water.

Elver: in plain English there is no distinctionbetween ‘glass eel’ and ‘elver’, both referringto the youngest stage. Technically the elver

has developing skin pigment and is beginningto feed. Elver enter fresh water, often in im-mense numbers in spring, as soon as the tem-perature reaches 9° or 10°C. The elver stageends when a length greater than about 9 cmand an age of more than 1 year is attained.Small eel of between 10 cm and 25 cm areknown as bootlace eel, also as yellow eel,though it is better to use the latter term forlarger individuals.

Brief definitions of the life stages are given inTable 2.1.

Yellow (brown) eel: feeding and growingstage. Males never grow to more than 47 cmand seldom attain more than 40 cm in length.Females can reach 1 m or more, but are usu-ally less than 60 cm. The average growth rateis between 2 cm and 3 cm/year. Yellow eelare active from late March to late November.The majority hibernate in the mud on lake orriver beds but some individuals have longerseasons of activity. Yellow eel may be caughtin any month, but only in small numbers inwinter. The usual habit is to feed at night andthe favoured food is small invertebrates. Inmany, but not all, watercourses, eel of 40 cmand over regularly eat small fish, mostlyperch and roach.

Silver eel: breeding stage, migrating to sea.When sufficient size and fat content havebeen attained, the yellow eel metamorphosesto silver eel. The silver eel does not feed butmigrates downstream on the first stage of itsreturn journey to the Sargasso Sea. Migrationbegins in autumn and may continue till latespring. The majority of male silver eel are be-tween 30 and 40 cm long, age 6–10 years. Fe-males are 40–70 cm long, age 10–20 years.Only leptocephalus and silver eel can beclearly defined. The other stages form a con-tinuum with overlapping lengths and pigmentstages.


8

Table 2.1 Definitions of life stages of the European eel

Name Definition and habitat Appearance

Leptocephalus Larva. Ocean pelagic.Deep-bodied, strongly compressed, transparent ‘willow-leaf’ shape.

Glass eelSmall eel, less than one year post metamorphosis. Continental shelf waters to lower reaches of rivers.

Body form as in adult, largely trans-parent but with localised pigment.

ElverMigrating eel to 2 years post metamorphosis. Coastal and freshwater. This term is not strictly defined and is frequently used to include glass eel.

Fully pigmented eel, blackish colour: to length 10 cm.

Bootlace eel, snig Small growing, sedentary eel. Coastal and freshwater.Fully pigmented eel, yellow or brown colour: length 9 to 25 cm.

Yellow eel, brown eelLarge growing, sedentary eel. Coastal and freshwa-ter.

Fully pigmented eel, yellow or brown colour: length greater than 20 cm. Eyes small, body soft.

Silver eel, bronze eel Migrating, non-feeding eel. Freshwater to oceanic.Silver or bronze colour: length rarely less than 25 cm. Eyes large, body firm.


9

3 THE FISHERY

3.1 Glass eel and elver

Elver fishing is prohibited by the 1959 Fish-eries Act, but may be authorised under itsSection 14 in the interests of developing thefishery, both for stocking material and as‘seed’ for eel culture, since artificial propaga-tion is not possible. Because of high demandfrom the Far East prices reached extremelyhigh levels in 1997, but declined in 1998. Theelver is still a very valuable commodity,worth between £50 and £100/kg alive and ingood condition. Section 18 (1, a) of the 1980Fisheries Act empowers Fisheries Boards tocapture glass eel or elver.

Capture of glass eel did not take place in Ire-land until the 1990s. On the continent, fourmethods are in use: anchored tidal net (tela),fyke net, trawl and dip net. Tidal nets, fykesand dip nets are preferred because the trawlexposes the glass eel to considerable pressureand relatively high mortalities. Tidal netsmay be large and set by boat in mid-estuary orsmall and attached to bridges. Trawls are usu-ally between 1 m and 2 m diameter and oper-ated by large or small boats. Dip nets areabout 1 m diameter and operated manuallyfrom the bank.

Elver, migrating from salt to fresh water,have been captured systematically since 1959for transfer upstream or between catchments:first on the Shannon and latterly on other riv-ers. The usual gear is an elver trap, in the formof a catching box installed at the top of an el-ver pass.

3.2 Yellow eel

Yellow eel are caught by baited long-line oreel pot or by unbaited fyke net. About 200fishermen were licensed in 1999. It appearsthat all waters, in which viable eel catches arelikely to be made, are exploited. Some mayprove to be under-fished and the stocks in allmay be enhanced by the application of suita-ble management measures. Many proposals

for the development of unfished waters havebeen made and some followed up. Few suc-ceeded. It seems reasonable to believe that, inthe course of hundreds of years, eel fishershad established which watercourses couldyield good catches and which were not worththe effort.

Returns collected by the Department of theMarine between 1988 and 1996 showed that19 private eel fishers regularly made catchesin excess of 1 t/year. Two of these operatedweirs for silver eel, one eel pots in WaterfordHarbour, four fyke nets and the remaining 12were long-liners. The top return, 4.3 t by fykenet, was nearly equalled by a long-line catchof 4.2 t.

The majority of fishers recorded considerablyless than 1 t. Catches in the order of 1 t havebeen regularly observed by scientists workingin close association with fishers and the aver-age catch in Lough Neagh is about 1 t. Thesize of the catch depends to a great extent onthe skill of the fisher, but also on the effort ex-pended. It is clear that a substantial incomecan be made by an exceptionally hard-work-ing fisher, while reasonable supplements toother sources of income are made by the av-erage worker who approaches eel fishingpart-time.

3.3 Silver eel

Silver eel are caught at ‘eel weirs’, in mostcases conical coghill nets attached to stakes inrivers. The nets intercept the migrating eel. Ina few cases, particularly in conjunction withmilldams, rigid screens are used. Best catchesare made in stormy weather about the time ofthe new moon from September to December.From 1939 to 1959, legislation banned the in-stallation of fixed engines at sites which hadnot been used in one or more of the years1936, 1937 and 1938. These weirs are listedin Table 4.1.


10

Relatively few applications were made to de-velop new fisheries when the ban was re-voked by the 1959 Act and even fewer ofthese were successful. The cost of construct-ing an eel weir capable of fishing on the high-est floods has, in most cases, provedprohibitive.

In most cases a ‘free gap’ of 10% of the width

of the stream is required at an eel weir. Thisallows the escape of considerably more thanone eel in every ten. The yield in a number ofriver systems is greatly increased by the in-stallation of additional weirs. The installationof a weir upstream of an existing fishery doesnot necessarily reduce the catch of the latter.However, the development of new weirs insuch situations may be highly contentious.


11

4 MANAGEMENT and MARKETING

4.1 Legislation

Although angling for eel is increasingly pop-ular, the greater part of the catch is commer-cial. All commercial fishermen must belicensed. Fixed engines for the capture of eel,including fyke nets and most other gear, re-quire an Authorisation issued by DoMNR in

consultation with relevant Regional FisheriesBoard which may not issue a licence until theAuthorisation has been granted. Until the1990s, long-line licences had to be issued ondemand. Legislation in preparation at thetime of writing aims to bring the long-line un-der the same control as fyke nets and othergear.

Table 4.1. Eel weirs which operated in the years 1936–38 and may be licensed without an Authorisation

Fishery District Catchment River Townland

Dundalk Fane Clarebane Toome

Fane Corcullioncrew

Drogheda Boyne Blackwater Martry

Blackwater Castlepole

Blackwater O’Daly’s Bridge

Blackwater Lisduff

Blackwater Edenburt

Blackwater Virginia

Blackwater Drumcarrow

Blackwater Billis Bridge

Boyne Rosnaree

Boyne Maudlin

Boyne Newhaggard

Galloneura Greaghduff

Mullagh Mullagh

Waterford Barrow Barrow Tinnahinch

Barrow Ballygreague

Barrow Ballyogan

Barrow Fishergreague

Barrow Moneybeg

Nore Nore Mountjuliet

Suir Suir Cabragh

Suir Athassel

Suir Suirville

Galway Corrib Corrib Ashford

Corrib Townparks

Dalgan Conagher

Mask–Corrib Inishard

Mask–Corrib Dringreen

Robe Castlemagarret Park New

Kilcolgan Dunkellin Kilcullion

Loughrea Loughrea

Ballina Moy Manulla Gortlahan

Moy Glebe

Moy Bellass

Ballyshannon Drowes Drowes Lareen

Drowes Magheracar

Erne Erne Woteraghy

Erne Woteraghy

Erne Corlea


12

4.1.1 The 1959 Consolidation Act

Section 14 (as amended in the 1962 Act) ineffect allows the Minister to issue an Author-isation to catch, attempt to catch and have inpossession any specified fish caught by anyspecified method. It has been used extensive-ly not only for strictly scientific purposes butalso to allow commercial fishermen to usemethods which have not been covered by theexisting legislation. It is also used to permitfishing in particular places, such as narrowestuaries, where fixed engines are normallyprohibited. Ultimately, as happened with thefyke net, amending legislation may be enact-ed to regularise the fishery.

Section 14 has been used since 1959 to permitthe capture of glass eel or elver for overlandtransportation or for intensive culture. It is re-quired in this case because Section 173 pro-hibits the capture or possession of the ‘fry’ ofeel. A particular advantage of Authorisationsunder Section 14 is that strict conditions as todate, place and time of capture may be ap-plied together with a requirement for report-ing on the catch. This has been of greatimportance in providing scientific informa-tion.

Section 67 requires a Board to issue an ‘ordi-nary fishing licence’. The majority of such li-cences are for salmon, but the long-line foreel is included. This gave the Boards no dis-cretion in issuing licences. The 1994 Amend-ment sought to rectify this by deleting a partof Subsection 4 of Section 100 in accordancewith the assumption that the long-line was a‘fixed engine’. This was successfully chal-lenged in the Circuit Court in March 1997 bylong-line fishermen, the court holding that thelong-line was not a fixed engine. Furtheramending legislation will be required to putthe long-line for eel on the same footing asfixed engines.

Section 68 provides the regulations for dutieson ordinary licences.

Section 69 makes provision for fixing a dutyfor an unscheduled engine.

Sections 70 and 71 deal with the appointmentof agents to issue licences. There is no recordof their use in the case of eel.

Section 90 provides for the forfeiture of li-cences as an optional penalty for offences.

Section 95 generally forbids the use of nets infresh water. Subsection 1(d), however, per-mits the use of a net ‘constructed for the cap-ture of eel’.

Section 99 prohibits the erection of fixed en-gines in fresh water. Subsection 4, however,excludes the long-line for eel from this prohi-bition. This is of historical interest in that itseems to infer that the long-line was consid-ered to be a fixed engine. Subsection 5 allowsthe Minister ‘by order’ to authorise the erec-tion of a fixed engine in accordance withplans approved by the Minister. Subsection 6allows the ESB to erect fishing weirs in ac-cordance with Section 101.

Section 100 permits the use of a fixed enginewhich was in operation in one or more of theyears 1936, 1937 or 1938. These were theyears immediately preceding the 1939 Actwhich prohibited the erection of fixed en-gines in fresh water. Subsection 4 excludedthe long-line from this prohibition and wasrepealed in the 1994 Amendment – with theintention of equating the long-line with fixedengines and, therefore, requiring thatlong-lines be operated only when duly au-thorised.

Subsection 5 allows the Minister to authorisethe use of a fixed engine for eel. An Authori-sation under this Subsection is the usual in-strument to allow fishing for silver eel.

Section 101 allows the ESB, with the consentof the Minister, to construct a fishing weir ontheir own property.


13

Section 102 forbids the erection of a fixed en-gine in an estuary where the breadth of thechannel at low water of spring tide is less thanthree-quarters of a mile. This provision wasprimarily part of salmon conservation legisla-tion and Section 14 has been used frequentlyto allow the operation of small fyke nets insuch estuaries.

Section 103 similarly forbids the erection of afixed engine within one mile seaward orcoastward of the mouth of a river where thebreadth of the channel at low water of springtide is less than half a mile.

Section 107 requires a free gap in the deepestpart of any fishing weir. The gap must be onetenth of the width of the river and not lessthan 3 feet, but need not be more than 50 feet.The provision for ‘deepest part’ is to ensurethat the gap is not made at a point, such as themargin of a river, where the water is usuallymuch shallower and the effect of the gapwould be less.

Section 109 permits the Minister ‘by order’ toallow an eel weir to be used without a freegap. It had been considered, at the time of thelegislation, that it would be sensible to closethe free gap at the most downstream weir onany river to maximise the catch. This has nev-er been invoked. Current thinking would gen-erally be strongly opposed to closing off afree gap on the grounds that every fisherythroughout Europe should make an effort toensure some escapement of breeding stock.

Section 110 allows the Minister to require theconstruction of a free gap in a fishing weir.

Section 111 prohibits the alteration of the bedof a river in a way that would affect the flowthrough the free gap.

Section 112 prohibits the use of any sort offishing gear within the free gap or within 50yards upstream or downstream of it.

Section 114 limits to 20 feet the length of anyguiding wall to a fishing weir and forbids theuse of a guiding wall to alter the flow of waterthrough the free gap.

Section 151 provides for close seasonbye-laws and Subsection 1(b) imposed a gen-eral close season from 11 January to 30 June.This subsection was repealed in the 1962Amendment.

Section 152 sets out the penalties for infringe-ments of the close season, but excludes fish-ing by rod and line.

Section 153 requires the opening of the gapsof an eel weir in the daytime.

Section 173 prohibits capture, possession ofor injury to the ‘fry’ of eel.

4.1.2 The 1962 Amendment

Section 11 allows the Minister to authorise bybye-law the erection and use of fixed engines.

Section 12 allows the Minister to grant ex-emption from the guiding wall restrictions ofSection 114 of the 1959 Act.


Section 18 allows the Central Board or a Re-gional Board to ‘take fish from a fishery byany means whatsoever’. This would allow aboard’s employees to capture glass eel or el-ver.


Section 18 amended Section 95(1) of the1959 Act to bring eel nets under the authori-sation regulations of its Section 100.

Section 19 increased penalties for existing of-fences and introduced penalties for failure tocomply with the conditions of a Section 100Authorisation. By removing Subsection 1 ofSection 100 it simplified the issuing of Au-thorisations for new fixed engines. The Sec-


14

tion was intended to bring the long-line underthe same regulations as fyke nets and othergear, but was found defective by a CircuitCourt judgement in March 1997 which heldthat the long-line was not a ‘fixed engine’.

This led to the re-instatement of the unsatis-factory situation whereby Regional FisheriesBoards were required to issue a long-line li-cence to any person applying. The intendedeffect of Section 19 of the Fisheries (Amend-ment) Act of 1994 was to allow RegionalFisheries Boards to control all forms of eelfishing, including the use of the long-linewhich was deemed to be a fixed engine. Untila further amendment is made, full control ofeel fishing in the interests of stock conserva-tion will not be possible. As a temporarymeasure a bye-law, capping the number oflong-line licences to equal the numbers is-sued in 1997, was introduced in 1998 andre-issued in 1999. The legality of the 1999bye-law was challenged by a fisher, whoclaimed that it interfered with his livelihood.

Section 20 amended Part X of the 1959 Actby adding eel to the provisions for control ofdealing in and possession of salmon. Thisgreatly increases the powers of officers to in-spect vehicles suspected of containing eel andplaces on a person in possession of eel theneed to prove that they were lawfully cap-tured. Previously, it was almost impossible to

secure a conviction for an eel fishing offenceunless the capture of the eel was actually wit-nessed.

Section 21 introduces penalties for unlawfulsale or possession of eel.

Section 22 requires marking of packages con-taining eel.

4.2 Bye-laws

Close seasons exist under Bye-law in the Dis-tricts listed in the text table below.

The following Bye-laws deal with other as-pects of the fishery. Enforcement of thehalf-pound (454 g) minimum size limit forthe Limerick District and the Corrib systemwould cause considerable problems and thereare no good scientific grounds for its applica-tion to the silver eel fishery.

Bye-law 253 Drogheda District, dated 23rdAugust 1906Prohibits the use of any ‘night line’ except inLoughs Ramor and Mullagh.

Bye-law 368 Lamb’s Head to Dunmore Head,dated 30th August 1919

Prohibits the use of any long line, night line orspiller in fresh water.

Limerick River Shannon (except with lines and hooks)River Shannon, lakes and tributaries, with lines and hooks (other than single rod and line)Rest of District

1 February–30 June1 February–30 April1 January–30 June

Kerry Between Dunmore Head and Kerry Head 1 January–30 June

Galway Corrib or Galway River 11 February–30 June

Connemara Whole District, with lines and hooks (other than single rod and line)

11 January–9 April

Drogheda Any river in the District 1 December–30 June


15

Bye-law 399 River Corrib, its lakes and tribu-taries, dated 4th February 1930Prohibits the use of a long-line with morethan 1,000 hooks and imposes a minimumsize of half a pound (227 g). Also prohibitsthe use of a hook with gape less thanthree-eighths of an inch (9.5 mm)

Bye-law 220 Lough Derg, dated 9th January1896Prohibiting to use for the capture of fish ofany kind, in the said Lough Derg, lines com-monly called and known as “Tram Lines” or“Long Lines”, baited with the fry or young offish.

Bye-law 130 Westmeath and Cavan Lakes,dated 4th January 1890Prohibiting to use for the capture of fish ofany kind, in any of the lakes situated in theCounties of Westmeath and Cavan, linescommonly called and known as “TramLines” baited with fry or the young of fish.

Bye-law 386 Limerick Whole District, dated14th January 1929Prohibiting to kill, take, or have in posses-sion, in or near the banks of the rivers, lakesand tributaries in the Limerick District, anyfreshwater eel of less than one half of a poundweight.

Any such eel, if taken, must be forthwith re-turned to the water.

Prohibiting to use for the capture of eel, or forany method of fishing by which eel are com-monly captured in the Limerick District, anyhook of less than three-eighths of an inch (9.5mm) gape, measured from the point to theshank thereof.

Bye-laws 745 and 752 Management of eelfishing, dated 26th March and 15th December1998Cap the number of long-line licences thatmay be issued in any Fishery District, on thebasis of the numbers issued in 1997.

4.3 Enforcement

Enforcement is difficult and costly, mainlybecause fishing can be carried out effectivelybetween sunset and dawn. Serious problemsin bringing prosecutions have been largelymet by provisions of the 1994 Amendment.

4.4 Current management measures

4.4.1 Elver capture and transfer

Mortality of the elver and young yellow eel isextremely high, estimated at 90% or more. Bycapturing them in the lower reaches of riversand transporting to the upper waters, or catch-ing in unproductive waters and transfer toricher habitats, survival can be greatly en-hanced and stocks of marketable eel in-creased accordingly. Such measures havebeen in use in Germany since the 19th centu-ry, in Lough Neagh since the 1930s, in theShannon since 1959 and the Erne since 1962.Some transfers take place in the Corrib andMoy.

An alternative measure, now well establishedin Sweden, is intensive rearing to bootlacestage followed by release in autumn. Experi-ments in this technique were begun in 1997by the ESB and in 1998 by the Erne Eel En-hancement Programme.

4.4.2 Close seasons

Close seasons exist in a number of FisheryDistricts and proposals have been made bothfor country-wide and for local restrictions.The behaviour of the eel, as in seasonal mi-gration of elver and silver eel and hibernationof the yellow eel between October and April,effectively restricts the fishing seasons. Theusual argument in favour of imposing closeseasons is to protect other species, such assalmon. A good case can be made to prohibitsilver eel fishing during the smolt run, butother restrictions are less soundly based.

Statutory close seasons were abolished in the1959 Fisheries Act and in 1960 an attemptwas made to repeal those that remained in


16

force under bye-law. The relevant Boards ofConservators objected to repeal of thebye-laws listed in 4.2 above. Existing andproposed close seasons for yellow eel in latespring and summer actually prevent the fullexploitation of the fishery and need carefulconsideration in consultation with the fishingcommunity. A fixed close season takes no ac-count of such variable conditions as watertemperature and is a crude method of stockconservation. Measures such as limits onminimum size or on fishing effort are prefer-able.

In combination with strict control of fishingeffort, a close season is an effective means oflimiting total catch. It is, however, a verycrude measure which takes no account ofsuch important factors as the age distributionof the stock. Furthermore, it may adverselyaffect marketing by rendering eel unobtaina-ble at times of high demand.

4.4.3 Size limits

Besides the prohibition of the capture of theundefined young or ‘fry’ of eel (1959 Act,Section 173), the only size limit in the State isone half pound (227 g) in the Limerick andGalway Districts (Bye-law 386 of 1929). It islikely that, at the time of its introduction, themajority of silver eel caught on the RiverShannon were females and greater than 227 gweight. Enforcement of the Bye-law wouldhave greatly restricted the yellow eel catchand confined the silver eel catch to females. Ifenforced at present, such a size limit wouldeffectively prohibit the yellow eel fishery andrequire the release of a substantial proportionof the silver eel catches.

Because of the great variation of weight forany given length, limitation of size on aweight basis is unsatisfactory. A length limitfor yellow eel is desirable and should operatethroughout the State to facilitate enforce-ment. Besides its value as a managementmeasure, observation of a size limit for yel-low eel results in a more marketable product,

since there is little or no demand for smallyellow eel in northern Europe.

On the other hand, small silver eel are accept-able and any reasonable size limit does noth-ing more than ensure the release of all maleswithout having any effect on the females.

A limit of 35 cm for yellow eel is proposed.This would allow retention of the greater partof the catch of a standard fyke net, while pro-hibiting deliberate capture of bootlace eel foraquaculture. Silver eel should be exemptfrom size limit and capture of small eel forstocking may continue to be controlled bySection 14 Authorisations.

4.4.4 Free gap

The law requires a ‘free gap’ of 10% of thewidth of the river in connection with anyfixed engine for the capture of silver eel. Thismeasure aims both to provide downstreamfishers with a viable supply and to ensure thesurvival of breeding adults.

4.5 Views of Central and RegionalFisheries Boards

Discussions were held with senior officialsand members of the Fisheries Boards during1997 and 1998. Written observations werecollected from the Boards by the CentralFisheries Board in 1997 and a workshop ofofficers of the main eel-producing Regionstook place in January 1998.

Broadly speaking, all Regional FisheriesBoards are in favour of the development ofeel fishing. With the exception of the Barrow,south and southwest coast river systems haveno reasonable prospects for the developmentof commercial fisheries for yellow or silvereel in fresh water. Many experiments havebeen made, but it is now widely accepted thatthe stocks are too small to allow the develop-ment of a fishery which could repay the veryhigh capital cost of effective fixed engines.The Regional Fisheries Boards in these cases,


17

therefore, favour planned exploitation of el-vers. East coast rivers such as the Boyne andFane, together with the major west coast riv-ers, have lake systems and are the basis forimportant commercial eel fisheries. The Re-gional Fisheries Boards aim to exploit thesefisheries rationally.

A summary of the views of the Boards is in-cluded in the Central Fisheries Board’s Poli-cy Document (Gargan, 1999). The followingsection is based on this document with someadditional material derived directly from of-ficers and members of the Boards.

4.5.1 Eastern Region

The Board favours long-term development,including stock enhancement. Control oflong-lining should be centralised by appropri-ate amending legislation. Eel fishing on theRiver Liffey in breach of the terms of the Au-thorisation has caused considerable problemsin enforcement.

4.5.2 Southern Region

Both stocks and sizes of the eel have been se-riously reduced since the early 1990s.

The principal eel gear in the Region is thebaited eel pot used in Waterford Harbour.While licenses are issued, their legal validityis doubtful and there is a clear need to desig-nate them as scheduled engines. A Board’spower to control the types of gear used in abroad estuary is not clear and a possibility ex-ists for potentially damaging methods to beintroduced.

When the eel pots are brought under legisla-tion the precautionary principle should be ap-plied by having a maximum of 20 pots perlicense and a maximum number of 30 licenc-es for the Waterford Fishery District (effec-tively the combined estuary of the Barrow,Nore and Suir). The number of fyke net li-censes should not be increased. Numberedplastic tags should be issued to license hold-

ers to mark pots and fyke nets. Long-lines andeel trawls should be prohibited throughoutthe Region.

The following close seasons are proposed:

A minimum length of 30 cm eel for saleshould be introduced and rings to allow theescape of eels less than 120 g should be fittedto fykes and pots.

A population survey should be carried out, inclose connection with fishers and dealers, inthe large river catchments to guide future de-velopments and an improved method of catchreporting should be introduced. Priorityshould be given to the Barrow. Sources of eelbait, other than small fish captured at spratweirs should be sought.

4.5.3 Southwestern Region

The Board was greatly concerned over thefailure of the measure to control long-linefishing and recommended either that thelong-line be banned throughout the countryor that legislation to control it be introduced.

With the exception of the Lee reservoirs, andpossibly some estuaries, no waters in the Re-gion are suitable for development as eel fish-eries. The thrust, therefore, should be towardsdeveloping elver fishing and some brief stud-ies have been made. Suitable locations for el-ver traps have been identified and there islikely to be a good potential for dip net orfixed net fishing in long, narrow estuariessuch as those of the Laune and Maine.

4.5.4 Shannon Region

The Board considered that legislation to con-trol long-lines was an urgent necessity. Thenumbers of long-line licenses should be

Fykes in tidal water 1 December–31 April

Fykes in non-tidal water 1 November–31 April

Sprat weirs 1 April–15 June


18

capped at its present level of eight and theseshould be confined to the Clare lakes. Con-trolling legislation should enable conditionsto be attached to the license. Bye-law 752,1998 capped the number of licenses.

A continuing shortfall in the quantities of el-ver reaching the Shannon lakes needed to berectified. A joint Shannon Regional FisheriesBoard/ESB 2-year project to assess the avail-ability of elvers within the Region was set upin 1998. This is based on operation by crewsemployed by the Board and the ESB. In viewof the high prices paid for elver on the openmarket, problems are likely to arise unlessmeasures are put in place to prevent unau-thorised movement of elvers.

In the case of the ESB-owned fishery on theShannon, the Board would like to be in a po-sition to comment on the suitability of pro-spective netsmen who currently work asnominees on licences held by the ESB.

The Board considers that, until a comprehen-sive stock survey has been carried out, expan-sion of the fishery should be curtailed. Onlytraditionally used eel weirs, those that havebeen in place for the past 10 years, should belicensed. Fyke nets should not be permitted inrivers and the present number of licensesshould not be exceeded. There is little or nodemand for estuary licenses, but not morethan ten should be issued.

The Board accepts that eel poaching is wide-spread throughout the Region and requiresgreater resources to deal with the problem.

4.5.5 Western Region

The Western Regional Fisheries Board, hav-ing held a public meeting in November 1997with the fishers and other interests and havinghosted a workshop in January 1998, put for-ward a management strategy for the Region.

The Board has proposed a two-tier approachto the management strategy.

The first phase requires a bye-law to allow re-striction of the fishery to licensees from pre-vious years. Their results would be madeavailable for analysis to a research teambased at NUI Galway. The larger lakes wouldbe divided into zones, based on the parts ofthe lakes traditionally fished. A survey of el-ver passes and obstructions to their ascentwould be made while established elver trap-ping and transfer would continue.

The second phase would be to devise along-term management strategy based on thefindings of the survey. Measures would betaken to assist elver passage and the possibil-ity of importation of elvers would be consid-ered.

The Board agrees with the views of Shannonand Northern Boards that elver fishing shouldbe carried out only by persons acting on be-half of the Boards.

4.5.6 Northwestern Region

The Board had operated a policy of prohibit-ing fyke nets and restricting the numbers oflong-lines permitted. Following the judge-ment in favour of Christopher Hughes andCharles Stewart in the Circuit Court on 4thMarch 1997, the Board was required to issuelong-line licenses to all who applied. In effectthis prevents the Board from exercising anycontrol over the eel stocks.

In 1998 the Board embarked on a stock sur-vey exercise on which future developmentcould be based.

4.5.7 Northern Region

The Board has established the Erne Eel En-hancement Programme, a major cross-bordereel research and development projectco-funded by the Peace and ReconciliationMeasure and the governments of NorthernIreland and the Republic. This includes an in-novative scheme for the capture of glass eel inthe estuary, with the aim of providing suffi-


19

cient elver for stocking the entire catchmentat 0.1 kg/ha and a possibility of generating asurplus for use in eel culture. Other sources ofelver are being explored.

At present there is very little incentive for theNorthern or any Regional Board to make amajor effort to develop the eel fishery. En-forcement staff are few and adequate policingis beyond their resources. Should the eel fish-ery develop with the introduction of a zoningsystem, there will be an element of self-polic-ing amongst the licensed fishers who will notwelcome potentially damaging competition.

A significant incentive to managers to be-come deeply involved in the fishery could bebrought about by giving the Boards completecontrol over capture and sale of elvers at au-thorised elver traps. Revenue generatedthereby could be directed towards improvingthe management system. Such control of theelver fishery is considered essential. The cap-ture and transfer of elvers must begin as soonas possible and cannot wait until scientificsurveys have been completed.

The Board supports the use of fyke nets in thelakes of County Cavan, accepting that they donot threaten the stocks of other species.

The Board is seriously concerned by the mor-tality of silver eel caused by turbines at powerstations. It considers that the extent of thedamage needs to be quantified with a view toassessing the need for introducing remedialmeasures

4.5.8 Foyle Fisheries Commission

The Foyle catchment, with its scarcity of richlakes, does not appear to offer scope for thedevelopment of a viable fishery for yellow orsilver eel. However, the configuration ofLough Foyle and the large extent of the catch-ment give reason to believe that substantialstocks of glass eel may be available. Thecommission is to take part in a joint explora-tory glass eel fishing operation with the Erne

Eel Enhancement Programme. The Commis-sion is in favour of the exploitation of glasseel for export to other catchments or for inten-sive culture.

4.5.9 Central Fisheries Board

The Central Board’s policy is set out in detailby Gargan (1999). The Board agrees thatproper management can lead to increased em-ployment and revenue generation. The firstrequirement is to establish management on acatchment basis and then to assess the stocks.Following the assessment, a total allowablecatch must be determined. This will be the ba-sis for decisions on the number and type ofeel fishing licenses to be issued. All catch-ments below a certain productivity levelshould be designated as eel sanctuary areas toproduce breeding adults.

For a 5-year period capture and distributionof elvers should be undertaken by the Region-al Fisheries Boards or by persons working un-der their direct supervision.

Eel fishing in estuaries by fyke net or eel potshould be developed.

A policy on harvesting elvers for eel culturewill have to be considered in the overall con-text of elver stock management.

At a meeting in September 1998, the Boardproposed increases in licence fees as follows:

4.6 Marketing

4.6.1 Current marketing

The ESB is probably the biggest marketinggroup, handling the eel from the Shannon

Current Proposed

Gap eye (one coghill net) £40 £50

Long-line £40 £50

Eel trap £65 £81

Fyke (train of 20) £40 £50


20

lakes. Otherwise eel fishermen sell to itiner-ant specialist merchants. The 1994 Act re-quires all eel dealers to possess a license.

Traditionally, the large-scale eel fisher, inparticular the proprietors of silver eel fisher-ies, kept their catch alive in slatted boxes heldin the river in the vicinity of the trap. Whenlarge enough quantities for export had accu-mulated, they were packed on trays in wood-en boxes. The top tray was filled with icewhich served both to keep the eels cool and,as the ice melted, moist. High survival for asmuch as 48 h was achieved. The boxes weresent to England, mainly to Billingsgate inLondon, by rail and ferry. Lough Neagh eelscontinue to be live-packed in boxes but areflown to the Netherlands and to Germany.They reach the continental airports on theevening of capture and are processed and soldthe following day.

Outside Lough Neagh, the trend since the1950s has been for an increasing proportionof the marketing to be handled by itinerantdealers equipped with aerated water tanks.The usual practice is local live-storage by thefishers and collection of the catch once aweek. Some Dutch merchants deal directlywith the fishers, others buy from Irish middle-men. The ESB established an export trade infrozen eel.

Importers have naturally been greatly con-cerned over the freshness of the eel and have,therefore, favoured systems which deliveredthe living product.

In 1999, the ESB, Lough Neagh Co-operativeand BIM engaged a marketing consultancygroup to make a study of the subject in north-ern Europe, with particular reference to Ger-many and the Netherlands. The groupprovided details of the importing firms andtheir requirements.

4.6.2 Market development

The Lough Neagh Co-operative has achieved

a high reputation for consistently high-qualityeel and its system of daily local collection andexport by air-freight operates with great effi-ciency. This depends partly on a good central-ised management system and partly on therelatively large quantities of eel provided dai-ly. In spite of this, prices offered fluctuate andfishing from time to time is suspended whenprices on offer are unacceptably low.

Live storage entails a degree of loss of weightand condition, but the fisheries in the Repub-lic at present are too small to support dailycollection. Furthermore, the costs of transportare relatively high and this is reflected in theprice paid to the fisher. Live transport in tank-er-trucks is beneficial in delivering eel ingood condition to the processor, but adds sig-nificantly to the marketing costs becausemuch of the bulk carried is water rather thaneel.

From the standpoint of the Irish eel industry,these factors minimise its value since a largeproportion is absorbed in transport costs. Aslong as the industry remains small and con-fined to live export, these problems will per-sist.

The objection of eel importers to dead eel isvery long established and can be overcomeonly by a concerted effort. It will be neces-sary first to establish the feasibility of localslaughter and cold storage and subsequentlyof a range of processing. The minimum isgutting and de-sliming, the maximum is pro-duction of a pre-packed item for supply to theretailer. This will require close liaison withestablished importing firms, probably in thefirst instance under franchise. The ultimategoal should be the establishment of a marketfor Irish eel. Any progress in this directionwill depend on the imposition of rigorousquality control.

4.6.3 Market prospects

There is general agreement that the marketfor wild eel is not expanding. It is evident that


21

the farmed eel, thanks to its uniform size andyear-round availability, is more popularamongst dealers. Prices offered for wild eel,even to such major producers as the LoughNeagh Co-operative, have frequently beenunacceptably low. This poses the seriousquestion of the desirability of increasing thequantities offered for sale.

It must be emphasised that the developmentplan given in this document will require 10years to come to fruition and that nobody canforecast a situation in the food market over solong a period. Increasing the Irish output from1,000 to 3,000 t would add merely 6% to thecurrent European supply and, therefore, couldnot be expected to result in any significantlowering of the price even in a static situation.

Furthermore, the prospects for an increase indemand are good. The eel is a luxury productand the increasing standards of livingthroughout Europe are certain to lead togreater demands for such top quality food. Itis also likely that the ‘green’ market will be-come more and more significant and the dis-advantage of seasonality and unpredictabilityof the wild eel will be offset by its attractionas a ‘natural’ product.

At present the eel market is fragmented andIrish suppliers are very much at the mercy ofcontinental importers. Increased output, in-volving co-operation North and South, willgreatly strengthen the position of the Irishproducer.

Finally, little or no attention is given to thepromotion of the eel, sales being largely di-rected to a highly localised traditional clien-tele. There is clearly scope for a national orinternational marketing campaign to increasedemand. The usual reaction of a person eating

eel for the first time is to enquire as to wheremore may be obtained.

4.7 Processing

Virtually no processing takes place: eel areexported either alive or frozen. In the coun-tries where eel are consumed, nearly all areprocessed before retailing. Eel of all sizes andlife stages are acceptable in the market. Glasseel are canned in Spain and sold as extremelyhighly-priced luxury items. Bootlace eel arecanned in Portugal or sold live in the south ofFrance for export for on-growing in Italy.German smokers prefer large silver eel,Dutch smokers small silver and so on. Eel ofall sizes are good to eat but the market for anygiven size range is very localised. Processes,besides smoking, include jellying, picklingand the very elaborately prepared ‘kabyaki’for the Japanese market.

The practicality of the development of an in-digenous processing industry is too remote tomerit consideration at this stage. The obviousapproach is to prepare established products inassociation with more than one foreign proc-essor. Past attempts to process eel in Irelandhave failed and it appears that the usual causewas the processor’s unwillingness or inabilityto pay the fisher a price equal to or greaterthan that offered by the itinerant dealer. Thiscannot be a logical situation since localprocessing does away with the high transportcosts.

A study of the quantities of eel of variousgrades available will be required as a first stepin determining the feasibility of developing aprocessing industry. It may reveal that quan-tities are insufficient at present but will giveimportant indications of future possibilitieswhen the enhanced production is attained.


22

5 DEVELOPMENT

The basis of the management programme isthe capture and distribution of glass eel at arate of 0.1 kg/ha/year. This requires an annualcapture and distribution of 5 t to yield 1,000 tof wild eel from 500 km2 of lake surface. Anadditional 5 t would be needed to produce1,000 t of cultured eel. Captures in the orderof 5 t per season from Ardnacrusha and Bal-lyshannon combined have been made fromtime to time in recent years and were regular-ly obtained in the 1960s and 1970s whenglass eel were very much more plentiful.There are theoretical reasons for predictingthat intensified and improved fishing couldyield as much as 20 t of glass eel/year.

5.1 National and Regional Development

Development of the fishery requires in thefirst place a major research programme,co-ordinated by a central authority. The Ma-rine Institute would be appropriate as it cur-rently employs an eel specialist, but theCentral Fisheries Board could be an equallysuitable headquarters in view of its positionwith regard to the Regional Fisheries Boards.

5.2 Personnel

The scientific personnel would be full-timeappointments since the initial steps outlinedin this paper will, in addition to solving themost immediate problems, constantly bringforward new ideas which will need to be sci-entifically tested. Moreover, as the fisherydevelops and fishing pressure on the stocksrises, increasingly sophisticated monitoringtechniques will need to be applied to ensurethat the fishery is managed to attain maxi-mum efficiency and yield.

The central authority team would compriseone scientist as project leader, with appropri-ate clerical support, to co-ordinate nationaleffort. After an initial 3-year phase he wouldrequire a full-time technician.

Six regional teams would engage in research,

development and management work, each tocomprise a scientist as project leader, a tech-nician and two fishery officers. The fisheryofficers would not work full time on eel sincethe capture fishery for market eel will operatemainly from May to October and the elvertransportation project will take place fromlate February to late April. The elver projectwill require intensive work only for a fewdays every 2 weeks since elver movement isstrongly influenced by tides.

5.3 Glass eel and elver development

All the teams would concentrate in earlyspring on elver capture and transportation.While the capture of elvers ascending intofresh water is well established on the Erneand Shannon, extremely little is known aboutthe behaviour and capture of estuarine glasseel. This problem is complex and will requirea serious research effort over many years. Ithas not been adequately approached any-where in the world.

Apart from the fact that all Irish river systemsare significantly different from each other,conditions in all other European waters aredifferent from those in Ireland. Therefore, ex-trapolation from the few scientific studiesthat exist already cannot provide the detail re-quired for a management plan in Ireland. Fur-thermore, only a very small number of studieshave been conducted over a sufficiently longtime-scale to explain variations caused bytemperature, water levels and flood condi-tions which change from year to year. Elverexploration and capture will need the supportof a substantial number of fishers, workingunder contract to the Regional FisheriesBoards and being paid for their catches.

5.4 Yellow eel fishery

The scope for development varies greatly be-tween Regions. The most important eel habi-tats are listed in Table 5.1. Five Regionscontain a number of substantial lakes and es-


23

tuaries but the Southern has no lakes bigenough for eel development while the lakesof the Southwestern are in general too acid tosupport a profitable fishery. Many of its estu-aries, however, appear to present very prom-

ising glass eel habitats. It is, therefore,suggested that eel development in the South-ern and Southwestern Regions be managed ina joint programme between the two Boards.

5.5 Silver eel fishery

A number of profitable fisheries for silver eelexist. While measures to increase the effi-ciency of any of these may be justified oneconomic grounds, the need to introduce newoperations is open to question. Because nor-mal migration of the silver eel takes place inflood conditions, the capital cost of effectivebarriers is extremely high. This probably ex-plains the fact that very few have been erectedin the course of the 20th century and manyhave been abandoned.

Silver eel represent potential spawning stockand have traditionally been protected, usuallyby the requirement for a ‘free gap’ in catchingengines. Enhancement of yellow eel stock,provided the resulting fisheries are adequate-ly controlled, will lead to increases in survivalto the silver stage and thereby increase thespawning stock. Such a development couldjustify an increase in the silver eel fishery, es-pecially since the product is more valuablethan the yellow eel. Because of Europe-wideconcern about spawning escapement, the ap-proach in the short to medium term should beto take no active steps to encourage silver eelfishing developments. Sampling of silver eelis an important factor in stock assessment andshould be a regular feature of all scientificstudies.

5.6 Major studies

Major studies have been made recently of theeel in the Shannon catchment and are inprogress on the Erne. The Southern RegionalFisheries Board has begun studies in Water-ford Harbour and the Northwestern RegionalFisheries Board is to begin a survey of itsmost productive eel waters. To carry out suchstudies with existing staff is a very significantstep forward and will yield important results.It must, however, be stressed that the problemis too large and complex to be satisfactorilyapproached on a part-time basis. Seriousprogress in eel development demands along-term commitment to full-time work.

The extensive study conducted on the Shan-non (McCarthy et al., 1994a,b; Reynolds etal., 1994) and that in progress on the Erneprovide or will provide essential base-line da-ta. These will need to be updated by monitor-ing teams. In addition, both Shannon andNorthern Regions have other lakes, such asthose on the Fergus and Lough Melvin, whichneed attention by the proposed teams.

5.7 Development and maintenance pro-gramme

The programme envisages an initial 3-yearphase during which research and develop-ment on a regional basis will be undertakenby teams in parallel, co-ordinated by the cen-

Table 5.1. Major productive eel habitats in Fisheries RegionsEastern Ramor, Monaghan lakes, Wexford HarbourSouthern / Southwestern Waterford Harbour, BarrowShannon Shannon lakes, Clare lakes, Shannon EstuaryWestern Corrib catchment lakes, Lough ReaNorthwestern Conn, Gill, Arrow and smaller lakesNorthern Cavan lakes in Erne catchment


24

tral team (5.2). The work programme for theregional scientific teams is summarised inTable 5.2 and for the fishery officers in Table5.3.

A glass eel-based enhancement project in Ire-land requires a lead-in time of 10 years on ac-count of the slow growth rate of the species.The first results of increased yield becomeapparent 10 years after the first stocking sea-

son and the yield will continue to rise for thefollowing 5 years after which it will stabiliseif properly managed. The developmentscheme will take place in two phases: (i) 3years basic research with contract scientistsand technicians, (ii) annual stocking, man-agement and scientific monitoring operationby Regional Board officers, with centralco-ordination by a permanent eel expert.

Glass eel fishing, initiated in the 1990s in theestuaries of the Shannon and Erne, resulted inthe capture and transfer of significant num-bers to the lakes of the two systems. Increasedfishing effort in these catchments and devel-opment of fishing in others detailed in Chap-ter 6 will result in greater catches. Scientificsampling is required to develop the cost-ef-fectiveness of the operation, to monitorlong-term changes and to gather informationon the desirability of developing an exportfishery.

The exploratory fishing for yellow and silvereel will, in the first place, be needed to estab-lish base-line data to be used in monitoringand assessing the effectiveness of the devel-opment of the fishery as a whole. Catch sam-pling will provide the basis for managementmeasures. Silver eel sampling is an importantpart of the basic management studies but,more importantly, is a requirement in deter-mining spawner escapement for the Europeaneel population.

Capture of glass eel depends largely on tidalconditions and experiments in progress areshowing that the operation is part-time, re-quiring generally a few hours of a limitednumber of nights. The scientific studies will

enable the requirements to be more closelydefined. To ensure that the glass eel are deliv-ered to their legitimate destinations will re-quire a measure of patrolling. Situations havealready been identified in which Regional

Table 5.2. Work outline for regional scientific teamsFebruary–May 1. Exploratory glass eel fishing

2. Glass eel samplingMay–September 1. Exploratory fishing

2. Catch sampling3. Silver eel sampling

October–December Silver eel samplingJanuary–February Data analysis

Table 5.3. Work outline for regional fishery officersMid-February–May Operate/patrol glass eel fishery

10 nights/monthMay–September Patrol yellow eel fishing

3–7 days/weekOctober–December Patrol silver eel fishery

6 nights/month


25

Board officers are able to engage in glass eelcapture without interfering with their regularduties. Such an arrangement has the advan-tage of ensuring full control of the transfer ofthe glass eel and also of ensuring a presenceof officers in the fishery.

Control of the fishery for yellow and silvereel is essential in the optimal management ofthe stock. The scientific studies will deter-mine optimal fishing effort and size limits.Enforcement of these requirements will needdedicated eel work in all Regions. Because of

the seasonal and tidal behaviour patterns ofthe eel, none of the enforcement work will befull-time and officers will be free to engage inother duties for much of the time. It is verydesirable, however, that at least one officer ineach Region be assigned primarily to eelwork so that appropriate expertise is devel-oped.

Estimates of the costs of the development andmaintenance programme are given in Chapter8 and detailed in Moriarty (1999).


26

6 REGIONAL STRATEGIES

In this section the extent of major catchments,their stocking requirements and potentialyield are quantified. The basis for the calcula-tion relates to the sustained yield of LoughNeagh at 20 kg/ha with a stocking rate of 250or 0.1 kg elver/ha. The estimate of the LoughNeagh yield is probably the most accurate inthe entire eel fisheries of Europe. Since theCo-operative enforces a maximum daily quo-ta, it is believed that the actual yield is higher.Moreover, substantial areas of the bed ofLough Neagh are sandy, unproductive of eel,and therefore, rarely fished. It appears, there-fore, that the yield per productive hectare ofthe lake must be considerably greater than 20kg/ha.

The stocking rate of 250 glass eel/ha is alsoaccurately known. In this, and all other Irishfisheries except the Erne, there is an unquan-tified natural recruitment. The requirement of250 glass eel to yield 20 kg market could bean over-estimate. On the other hand there isno reason to believe that the yield of LoughNeagh would not be greater if more glass eelwere supplied – there is no evidence whateverof over-stocking. In spite of the present im-possibility of an exact calculation of yield perrecruit, the target of 250 glass eel/ha isstrongly recommended. It has been acceptedas the best available by the EU Concerted Ac-tion on Eel (Moriarty and Dekker, 1997). Sci-entific monitoring of stock and yield on apermanent basis will ultimately yield a moreprecise estimate. It is certain that each catch-ment will eventually be shown to have a dif-ferent requirement, but the Lough Neaghfigure is undoubtedly the best working esti-mate available.

The possibility of significant yields of elveror market eel in rivers of less than 25 kmlength and ‘acid’ lakes of conductivity lessthan 125 meq/l is not considered. Good catch-es of eel in such conditions are not unknown,but priority at least for the first 10 years of adevelopment exercise must be given to the

most productive systems. However, theselakes and rivers yield very substantial num-bers of spawners and may make an importantcontribution to the eel stock as a whole. Theiroutput in this regard should be assessed.

Elver capture will take place in river catch-ments such as the Shannon, Corrib and Ernewhich are currently exploited for yellow andsilver eel and in which stocks may be en-hanced. The first priority is to transfer a min-imum quantity of 0.1 kg elver/ha to the lakeswithin the system every year. Thereaftertransfer outside the catchment may takeplace.

In catchments in which exploitation of yellowand silver eel is unlikely ever to take place theaim should be to maintain the wild populationupstream in the interests of contributing to thebreeding stock. A figure of 1 kg/10 km ofmain channel stream was adopted by the Con-certed Action. This is applied to the tables inthe following section and it is proposed thatauthorisations for elver capture include a con-dition that the given quantity of elvers mustbe released before removal of any from thecatchment may be permitted.

6.1 Eastern Region

The Eastern Region has a long tradition offishing for yellow eel in Loughs Muckno andRamor and some smaller lakes and of a verysubstantial number of eel weirs and ‘fishingmilldams’, particularly on the Fane andBlackwater rivers. Wexford Harbour, thelarge and partly enclosed estuary of the RiverSlaney, has supported a fyke net fishery sincethe 1970s.

6.1.1 Elver

The upper estuaries of the Castletown River,the Boyne and the Slaney appear to be prom-ising sites for trawl or fixed netting. In thecase of the Slaney, elver capture upstream ofthe yellow eel fishery should have no nega-


27

tive impact whatever. Trapping at the mostdownstream weirs of the Boyne and theLiffey should be given first priority, but theweirs on the smaller rivers in the catchmentshould all be investigated.

6.1.2 Yellow eel

The Boyne catchment contains Lough Ramorwhich has good population potential, andtherefore, first priority must be given tostocking it with glass eel, likewise the Fanestocks need to be directed to Lough Muckno.

Boyne, Broadmeadow and Liffey estuariesare fished from time to time. The effort prob-ably leads to stock depletion taking someyears to recover. Potential yield will never belarge and it is unlikely that managementmeasures could be cost-effective. One crewshould be the maximum in any season in anyone estuary. The same applies to the freshwa-ter fishery on the Liffey. The fyke net yieldson any of the other rivers are unlikely to besignificant.

Fishing rights on both Lough Ramor andLough Muckno are privately owned.Long-lining is prohibited in the latter. Be-cause of its small size and the existence of a

number of traditional eel weirs downstreamof Lough Muckno, there is no good reason toencourage fishing for yellow eel. The ownerof the Ramor rights issues permits tolong-line or fyke net fishermen. When devel-oped, up to four crews could be accommodat-ed.

Lough Lene has no tradition of eel fishingand, because of its position at the headwatersof effluent rivers (Boyne and Shannon catch-ments), is unlikely to hold good eel stocks. Itwould be an extremely interesting lake for ex-perimental development.

The privately-owned South Sloblands Chan-nel, having been shown to have an unusuallydense population of eel in 1970 was fishedsuccessfully the following year. Recovery af-ter heavy fishing required a period of 5 years,as had been predicted by age and growth stud-ies (Moriarty, 1982b). Management advice tothe owner was to fish at 5-year intervals rath-er than attempt to maintain an annual catch.Poor recruitment since the 1970s, however,led to the abandonment of the fishery.

Lady’s Island Lake provided worthwhilecatches in the 1960s. Its irregular connectionwith the sea, however, reduces the chances of

Table 6.1.1. Annual glass eel requirements and potential yield of yellow and silver eel in the EasternRegion

Length(km)

Glass eel(kg)

Elverpotential

Elver gear Area(ha)

Glass eel(kg)

Potential yield(t)

Rivers LakesCastletown 45 5 ** fixed Muckno 33 3 1Fane 61 6 * trap Lene 430 43 9Glyde 55 5 * trap Ramor 800 80 16Dee 60 6 * trap South Sloblands 50 5 1Boyne 113 11 ** trawl, fixed, trap Lady’s Island 300 30 6Nanny 39 4 * trapBroadmeadow 34 3 * trapTolka 32 3 -Liffey 132 13 ** fixed, trapVartry 32 3 * fixedOwenavorragh 29 3 * fixedSlaney 118 12 ** trawl, fixed

Total elver requirement (kg) 161Total potential yield (t) 33


28

recruitment. A small sustainable fisherycould be created by standard managementand would allow operation by two crews.

The most important eel fishery in the Regiontakes place in the Slaney Estuary where some20 licensed fishermen make an estimatedcatch of 10 t. It is assumed that this and otherestuaries are well stocked by glass eel, thoughthis has never been the subject of investiga-tion. No eel fishing takes place in the fresh-water portion of the Slaney.

6.1.3 Silver eel

Six eel weirs have been operated on the RiverFane, depending largely on the eel of LoughMuckno. Before the Boyne drainage, six eel

weirs operated on the Blackwater and therewere 20 in total on the Boyne and its tributar-ies, though several were derelict by the timethe drainage began. The Central FisheriesBoard has been given estimated annual catch-es of 5 t and 7 t in the Fane/Glyde/Dee andBlackwater, respectively. Returns suppliedby the fishermen are incomplete and suggestthat the catches are smaller. An annual yieldof 5 t from the Fane, Glyde and Dee with theirsmall lakes would imply an exceptional bio-mass and highly efficient fishery. Catches ofmore than 1 t were made at some of these andcould be repeated when eel stocks increase.However, the capital cost of building an effi-cient eel weir could be unrealistic, even if acatch of 1 t/year could be realised.

6.2 Southern Region

The most successful fishery in the Regiontakes place in Waterford Harbour. Until the1960s, the gear used was a wicker basketabout 1 m long and 50 cm in diameter. Thesewere made in Carrick-on-Suir. Partly due tothe absence of substantial lakes from thecatchments, there are only minor fisheries foryellow and silver eel in fresh water. In the late1960s a visiting Dutch fisherman introducedgear known locally as the ‘beck’, a trap madefrom nylon mesh supported on plastic hoops.These must be baited with freshly-caughtsmall estuarine fish such as herring.Lock-keepers on the Barrow placed smallnets for silver eel in the sluices of the lockgates and small numbers of eel weirs were op-erated on the three rivers. Fyke nets were

used in the 1970s on the Barrow and on theBlackwater and are still operated in the Suirestuary.

6.2.1 Elver

Trials of elver fishing by ladder-trap at St.Mullins for transport upstream were made bylocal eel fishermen but did not develop. Inview of the size of the catchments of the mainrivers and the length of their estuaries, it ispossible that substantial numbers of glass eelenter the tidal water and that development ofa fishery is feasible. Experiments could bemade at a number of bridges and at down-stream weirs. Priority in stocking should begiven to the Barrow which, unlike the major-ity of rivers without lakes in Ireland, has beenfished cost-effectively.

Table 6.1.2. Eel fisheries in the Eastern Region (s, silver eel; y, yellow eel)

Catchment(km2)

Fisheries Number of fishers

Catch(t)

Catch potential(t)

Glass eelpriority

Notes

Fane 350 s & y 6 5 7 1

Boyne 2,694 s & y 5 7 26 1 includes estuary

Liffey 1,368 y 1 1 2

Slaney 1,761 y 20 10 10 3 estuary only

Total 32 23 43


29

6.2.2 Yellow eel

Fyke net fishing took place on the Barrow inthe 1970s with some success, but was aban-doned and a strong and reasonable caseagainst its development has been made by theexisting silver eel fishermen. Fyke net fishinghas also been successful on the Blackwaterwhere there are no silver eel fisheries, andtherefore, no conflict of interests. Because ofthe limited area of water in rivers – in contrastto the situation in lakes – there are no pros-pects for the development of major fisheriesin the Region, but small-scale fishing as asideline in the Blackwater, Suir and Norecould be tolerated – bycatch of salmonids hasusually been insignificant.

The eel pot fishery for yellow eel in Water-ford Harbour has been successful, but fisher-men are making a plausible claim thatquantities and sizes of the eel are falling. TheBoard has proposed that not more than 30 li-censes be issued for the time being and thatthe maximum number of pots per license be

20. On the same basis of reduction of size andstocks, the Board has also recommended thatthe maximum number of fyke net licences forthe Waterford Fishery District be nine andthat not more than 20 nets be allowed per li-cence.

In view of strong rumours of export of smalleel from the Region, the Board has also rec-ommended setting a minimum length limit of30 cm.

The yellow eel population in the Blackwaterestuary was studied in 1965 and 1966 and inthe river between Banteer and Fermoy in1972 and 1973 by Moriarty (1975a). Suffi-cient stocks were present to sustain a smallfishery but there are no serious prospects forcommercial development and the river wouldbest be conserved as a source of spawningstock.

6.2.3 Silver eel

Silver eel fishing has been tried at many

Table 6.2.1 Annual glass eel requirements and potential yield of yellow and silver eel in the SouthernRegion

Length(km)

Glass eel(kg)

Elver potential Elver gear Potential yield(t)

Rivers

Barrow 192 19 *** trawl, fixed trap 2

Nore 140 14 ** trawl, fixed trap 2

Suir 184 18 ** trawl, fixed trap 15

Blackwater 167 17 ** trawl, fixed trap 2

Total elver requirements (kg) 68

Total potential yield (t) 21

Table 6.2.2. Eel fisheries in the Southern Region (s, silver eel; y, yellow eel)

Catchment(km2)


Catch(t)

Catch potential(t)

Glass eelpriority

Notes

Barrow 3,067 s 6 <1 2 ***

Nore 2,530 s 1 <1 2 ** mainly in river

Suir 3,603 y 19 15 30 **

Blackwater 3,326 y 2 <1 2 ** mainly in estuary

Total 28 23 36


30

points on the rivers and has been abandonedin most cases. Because of the propensity forflooding, effective gear would usually be un-economical to construct. An important excep-tion is on the Barrow where lock keepers haveoperated a fishery. Effort in this fishery hasbeen greatly reduced, probably because offalling stocks. It is a small but potentially sig-nificant operation which could be revived bya stocking programme.

6.3 Southwestern Region

The relatively acidic waters throughout theRegion support a population of slow-growingeel. A fishery has, however, been establishedin Lough Allua and there are possibilities forworthwhile catches in the Lee reservoirs.There is potential for yellow eel fishing inLough Leane and reasonably successful trialswere made there in the 1960s. However, theNational Parks authorities decided to forbidany commercial fishing and the lake, there-fore, constitutes an effective sanctuary area.While there is no reason to prohibit individu-als from fishing in the Southwestern Region,the Regional Fisheries Board decided againsttaking active steps to develop yellow and sil-

ver eel. There is, however, considerable po-tential for elver fishery development.

6.3.1 Elver

In spite of the Lee’s large catchment and ex-tensive estuary, the persistent failure of ef-forts to establish fyke net fisheries in the tidalwaters suggests that the supply of elvers islimited. For this reason it might be given lowpriority for experimental fishing. The othersubstantial rivers may have considerable po-tential and top priority is recommended forthe Bandon, Laune and Maine. The smallerKerry rivers are known to have conspicuouselver runs from time to time and could besuitable sites for trapping.

6.3.2 Yellow eel

A fyke-net fishery has been operated success-fully for some years in Lough Allua andshould be continued. The stocks are unlikelyto be sufficient for more than one crew. TheLee Reservoirs have some potential butshould be limited to a single crew until stock-ing increases the population.

Table 6.3.1 Annual glass eel requirements and potential yield of yellow and silver eel in the SouthwesternRegion

Length(km)

Glass eel(kg)

Elverpotential

Elver gear Area(ha)

Glass eel(kg)

Potential yield(t)

Rivers Lakes

Lee 87 9 ** trawl, trap Allua 200 20 4

Bandon 72 7 *** trawl Lee Reservoirs 400 40 8

Argideen 27 3 ** fixed

Ilen 32 3 ** fixed

Sheen 22 2 * trap

Roughty 27 3 * trap

Blackwater 16 2 * trap

Cummeragh 24 2 * trap

Inny 25 3 * fixed

Laune 75 8 *** fixed

Maine 72 7 *** fixed

Total 49 60 12


31

6.3.3 Silver eel

No silver eel fishing takes place in the Re-gion. Possibilities for small-scale develop-ments at milldams exist and should not bediscouraged. The economics of such an oper-ation depend entirely on a no-wage situation.

6.4 Shannon Region

Returns provided by the railways early in the20th century suggested that the eel yield fromthe Shannon lakes was greater than fromLough Neagh. However, the Lough Neaghmanagement team began active developmentwork in the 1930s while, about the same time,the Ardnacrusha dam was installed with min-imal knowledge of the requirements of as-cending elvers. The Shannon eel fisherydeclined but remedial steps, including an el-ver transport scheme together with curtail-ment of public fishing, were initiated by theESB in 1959.

The first scientific study of eel in the Shannonbegan in 1969 and the results were publishedby Moriarty (1974). In 1981 a long-termstudy was begun in Meelick Bay in LoughDerg and is still in progress. A number of sci-entific papers giving results from this projecthave been published. The main managementconclusions of these studies were brought to-gether in a Fishery Leaflet entitled The eelstocks of the Shannon system and prospectsfor the development of the fishery (Moriarty,1987). This suggested that a yield of 1,000 t/year could be attained from the Shannonlakes.

Subsequently the ESB funded greatly en-hanced surveys which were undertaken by re-search workers from University College,Galway and Trinity College, Dublin. (McCa-rthy et al., 1994a, b; Reynolds et al., 1994).These reports in general confirmed and de-veloped the earlier conclusions and led to ma-jor advances in fishing both for elvers and foryellow and silver eel.

6.4.1 Elver

Elver fishing on the Shannon was establishedin 1959 acting on the advice of a consultantHarold Koops of the German Coastal and In-land Fisheries Institute. Capture and transpor-tation of elver and bootlace eel fromArdnacrusha and Parteen Weir, respectively,have been carried out annually ever since.The elver catch at Ardnacrusha is believed tobe influenced mainly by the quantities ofglass eel actually reaching the Shannon Estu-ary from the open sea. It was large, varyingbetween 1 and 7 t up to 1982 when it fell tovery low levels, rarely exceeding 1 t until the1990s when better techniques and, probably,more abundant stocks, led to an increase.However, the minimum requirement of 3.5 twas not attained over a period of 15 yearsfrom 1981 until 1997. Fishing for elver on theRivers Maigue and Feale had also been suc-cessfully operated by the ESB and was im-proved in the 1990s, when the Bunratty andother untapped rivers began to be exploited.

By comparing the Shannon Estuary with es-tuaries elsewhere in Europe it appears that theShannon is seriously under-exploited and thatmany tonnes of elver could be captured. It iswell within the bounds of possibility that theShannon Estuary alone could provide all theelver required to stock Irish waters, to supplyaquaculture and to have a surplus for the verylucrative export market. Experimental fishingto develop the catch is in progress.

Top priority for elver capture is proposed forthe Feale, Maigue, Shannon, Bunratty andFergus on the grounds that they are alreadybeing exploited and have potential for greaterdevelopment. The Deel, Mulkear, Doonbegand Inagh are all likely to have good poten-tial. Other coastal streams in the Shannon Re-gion should be considered in due course.

6.4.2 Yellow eel

On the basis of sampling undertaken in 1985and 1986 (Moriarty, 1987), it was concluded


32

that the eel population density in the Shannonlakes was greater than that of Lough Neagh.This led to the conclusion that the knownfishing effort applied in the catchment, con-centrating almost entirely on silver eel andusually yielding less than 50 t of eel/year, wasinadequate to harvest the stocks effectively.At the same time there was evidence of exten-sive illegal fishing with an unknown yield.

The survey commissioned by the ESB in1992 and 1993 involved extensive fyke netfishing by supervised fyke net crews inLoughs Derg, Ree, Ennell, Sheelin and Allen(McCarthy et al., 1994a). Moriarty’s obser-vations in 1986 took place in Zone 3 of LoughDerg as defined by McCarthy and fished un-der his supervision in 1992 and 1993. Thecatch per ten nets fished overnight was 12 kgin 1986, falling to 8 in 1992 and 5 in 1993.The values are not directly comparable be-cause in 1986 fishing sites were selected atrandom while in 1992 and 1993 differentcrews were selecting the most promising sitesin the interests of maximising their catches.However, the decline in catch may very wellbe the result of the poor recruitment observed

in the 1980s and 1990s.

The majority of eel caught in the fyke nets arebetween 10 and 15 years old and, in verybroad terms, the average age of silver eel maybe taken as 15 years. Recruitment had beenreasonably strong at least from the 1960s upto 1982 so that the survey in 1986, undertakenbefore any substantial fishing for yellow eelwas taking place in Lough Derg, would havecoincided with maximum population. By1992 the years of poor recruitment shouldhave begun to be apparent and so the smallercatch per unit effort is not surprising.

The current level of exploitation allowed bythe ESB is reasonably low and should proba-bly remain so until the effect of the improvedrate of stocking becomes apparent.

6.4.3 Silver eel

From the 1950s until the 1990s, commercialfishing for yellow eel was prohibited on theShannon and all effort was directed towardsthe silver eel. The original management theo-ry and proposal was that the entire catch

Table 6.4.1 Annual glass eel requirements and potential yield of yellow and silver eel in the ShannonRegion

Length(km)

Glass eel(kg)

Elverpotential

Elver gear Area(ha)

Glass eel(kg)

Potential yield(t)

Rivers Lakes

Feale 74 7 *** trap, fixed Allen 3,500 350 70

Deel 19 2 ** fixed Boderg 430 43 9

Maigue 61 6 *** trap, fixed Bofin 408 41 8

Mulkear 31 3 ** trap Derg 11,635 1,163 233

Shannon 290 29 *** trap, fixed Derravaragh 1,100 110 22

Bunratty 42 4 *** fixed Ennell 1,400 140 28

Fergus 58 6 *** trap, fixed Gara 1,100 110 22

Doonbeg 24 2 ** fixed Graney 370 37 7

Annageerah 21 2 * fixed Inchiquin 110 11 2

Inagh 35 4 ** fixed, trap Key 900 90 18

Owel 950 95 19

Ree 10,500 1,050 210

Sheelin 1,900 190 38

Total 655 65 3,430 686


33

could be made at the eel weir in Killaloe.Even after very considerable and innovativeimprovements had been made to the gearthere, it was evident that catches were undulylow and a number of other installations wereused. These included revival of the silver eelweir at Athlone and the construction of a se-ries of three barrages of nets on the headracecanal at Clonlara.

Two traditional eel weirs had been operatedon the Fergus and a third was added, down-stream of the others, in the 1980s. All threemake a moderate catch. An estimate of 5 t hasbeen made for the total catch, silver and yel-low eel, on the Fergus.

6.5 Western Region

Management of the Corrib eel fisheries, apartfrom structural improvements to existing eelweirs and restrictions to yellow eel fishing,has been minimal. Elver passes were incorpo-rated in the barrage constructed in the 1960sto control water levels. Although elvers fromtime to time used the passes, they were fre-quently inaccessible because of flood orlow-water conditions and the necessary annu-

al servicing was abandoned.

The first fyke net study of eel in fresh waterin Ireland took place from 1967 to 1969 (Mo-riarty, 1972) and in 1970 commercial fyke netfishing for yellow eel began. The results ofthe study led to a recommendation that a max-imum of 20 fyke nets per person be allowed.This was based on the observation that a fish-ing effort of this magnitude would allow alakeside resident to make a modest returnfrom a small expenditure of time and effort.Minimising the effort per person would allowthe involvement of maximum numbers offishermen.

Eel migration in the River Corrib was studiedbetween 1980 and 1982 (McGovern and Mc-Carthy, 1992) and established that the catch-ing power of traps placed in the elver passeswas not more than 3 kg/night.

The results of a small sampling survey under-taken in 1990 indicated that the stocks wereconsiderably reduced and concluded thatpoor recruitment rather than intensity of fish-ing could explain the decline. A precaution-ary approach of maintaining the fishing effort

Table 6.4.2. Eel fisheries in the Shannon Region (s, silver eel; y, yellow eel)

Catchment(km2)


Catch(t)

Catch potential(t)

Glass eelpriority

Lakes

Shannon 12,050 s & y 70 70 700 *** Shannon lakes

Fergus 1,040 s & y 5 5 10 *** Fergus lakes

Total 75 75 710

Table 6.5.1. Annual glass eel requirements and potential yield of yellow and silver eel in the WesternRegion

Length(km)

Glass eel(kg)

Elverpotential

Elver gear Area(ha)

Glass eel(kg)

Potential yield(t)

Rivers Lakes

Kilcolgan 61 6 ** trap Carra 1,500 150 30

Corrib 77 8 *** trap Corrib 17,000 1,700 340

Ballynahinch 29 3 ** trap Mask 8,000 800 160

Erriff 32 3 *** trap Rea 260 3 5

Total 199 20 26,760 2,653 535


34

at its current level was recommended. Sincethen, stock enhancement by transferring glasseel from the neighbouring Erriff catchmenthas been carried out.

6.5.1 Elver

Anecdotal reports of extremely large num-bers of elver visible in daylight in the canalsof the city of Galway may be accepted as in-dicating that from time to time very substan-tial catches could be made. Barriers to theirascent to fresh water exist on all branches ofthe river and the only factual informationavailable (McGovern and McCarthy, 1992)suggests that relatively small proportions ofthe stock succeed in entering the lake system.It seems possible that mortalities are high andthat there is considerable scope for the devel-opment of the dip net fishery operated fromtime to time, together with the installation ofimproved traps.

Observations over many years indicate thatthe Erriff frequently has a large elver run andthat a significant fishery can be developed.The river is relatively small and it is likelythat a catch of many times the required es-capement (3 kg) may be made, for example32 kg in 1997.

The elver potential of the Kilcolgan or Dun-kellin River system has not been examined.The presence of substantial stocks of eel asfar upstream as Lough Rea suggests that sig-nificant numbers may enter the river. If ex-ploited for elver, the first requirement shouldbe the transfer of 3 kg/year to the potentiallyvaluable Lough Rea fishery.

A survey of eel in Ballynahinch Lake in the1980s indicated substantial stocks and in ear-lier years some observations had been madeof plentiful elvers under stones at migrationtime in the Ballynahinch River. As the big-gest of a number of small catchments in theregion, it is the most likely to attract a sub-stantial run of elvers. It is possible that all ofthe smaller rivers of Connemara could yieldseveral kg of elvers each.

Top priority for elver fishery development isrecommended for the Corrib and the Erriff.Kilcolgan and Ballynahinch are certainlyworth investigating, after which the smallerrivers could be considered.

6.5.2 Yellow eel

The long-line has a very long tradition of useon the lakes of the Corrib system by both res-ident and itinerant fishermen. The fyke netwas introduced in 1970 and adopted by some40 crews. Catch per unit effort appeared tofall in Lough Corrib in the late 1980s, but an-ecdotal information suggested that the stocksin Lough Mask were excellent in the 1990s.The eel of Lough Corrib are notably small,maturing at a relatively young age, with fe-males of less than 39 cm being caught fromtime to time and an unusual degree of overlapin lengths between male and female. The eelof Loughs Mask and Carra appear to be larg-er.

6.5.3 Silver eel

Major silver eel fisheries are situated in Gal-way City and at Inishard at the outflow ofLough Mask. Smaller fisheries are operated

Table 6.5.2. Eel fisheries in the Western Region

Catchment(km2)


Catch(t)

Catch potential(t)

Glass eelpriority

Lakes

Kilcolgan 383 s 2 n.a. 5 *** Rea

Corrib 3,152 s & y 40 40 520 *** Corrib, Mask, Carra

Ballynahinch 173 s 2 1 1 ** Ballynahinch

Total 44 41 526


35

at other points on Lough Mask and one atLough Carra. A remarkable indoor trap forsilver eel was operated in the town of Lough-rea where the Dunkellin River flows througha former watermill. A second eel weir existsfarther downstream on the same river. Sub-stantial catches are made on the Mask–Corribsystem. A silver eel fishery has been operatedfrom time to time on the Ballynahinch River.It is unusual in depending on the output froman acid-water lake.

6.6 Northwestern Region

The Moy catchment has a long history of eelfishing, for yellow eel on Loughs Conn andCullin and for silver eel at Foxford and Balli-na. Lough Arrow and Lough Gill have alsobeen fished regularly or at frequent intervals.Carrowmore Lake has not been surveyed and,assuming that long-liners make occasionaltrials there, the fact that there is neither a fish-ery nor any tradition of one suggests that thestocks may be poor. Good runs of elvers havelong been known in the Moy and Ballisodare.It is possible, indeed likely, that western riv-ers, such as the Owenmore, have exploitableelver stocks.

6.6.1 Elver

Substantial numbers of elvers are visiblefrom time to time at the salmon weir on theMoy at Ballina where they have been nettedand transferred to Lough Conn. The site is

highly suitable for the construction of elvertraps. A successful fishery was operated onthe Burrishoole at the Salmon Leap in the1960s, the elvers being transferred to theShannon. In the 1980s a simple trap madefrom local materials was placed in the Bal-lisodare fish pass and proved very effective.A stipulation was made that 50% of the catchbe released in Lough Arrow, the remainderbeing made available for an eel cultureproject.

The configuration of the Owenmore, at thehead of a substantial inlet, with a large lakeupstream, suggests that it could support agood elver run. The Cloonaghmore, on alarge estuary with a waterfall close to the tidalboundary, also looks promising. Owenduff,Newport and Burrishoole are possible elversources.

6.6.2 Yellow eel

Lough Conn has traditionally been fishedsuccessfully by long-liners. The eel popula-tion was studied in August 1972 (Moriarty,1973) and a more recent follow-up survey in-dicated that reasonable stocks were stillpresent. The eels were small and thegrowth-rate relatively slow. Eutrophicationof the lakes could have improved the eelhabitat and are unlikely to have damaged it.Lough Conn is unusual amongst large Irishlakes in lying on a tributary rather than on the

Table 6.6.1 Annual glass eel requirements and potential yield of yellow and silver eel in the NorthwesternRegion

Length(km)

Glass eel(kg)

Elverpotential

Elver gear Area(ha)

Glass eel(kg)

Potential yield(t)

Rivers Lakes

Owenmore 48 5 ** trap Carrowmore 960 96 18

Owenduff 29 3 * trap Conn 5,000 500 100

Newport 29 3 * trap

Burrishoole 23 2 * trap

Moy 100 10 *** trap

Cloonaghmore 32 3 ** trap

Total 261 26 5,960 596 118


36

main river Moy. The presence of good eelhabitats in the Castlebar lakes on the mainriver makes it likely that a high proportion ofthe ascending elvers pass by Lough Connrather than entering it. This might make littledifference to the silver eel fisheries but wouldseriously affect the stocks of Loughs Connand Cullin.

Lough Arrow was also a popular long-linefishery. A study of the long-liners was con-ducted by the Inland Fisheries Trust in 1955leading to the conclusion that the methodposed no hazard to trout stocks (Anonymous,1956). A stock survey in 1974 (Moriarty1975b) indicated a well-fed and fast-growingpopulation, but with relatively small num-bers. The small numbers could be ascribedboth to fishing intensity and to the probablenegative effect of the Ballisodare falls on as-cending elvers. This makes a very clear casefor capture and transfer of elvers.

Lough Gill in recent years has yielded a rea-sonable long-line catch, but has never been aspopular as Arrow. The eels studied in 1974(Moriarty, 1975b) were found to be less plen-tiful, smaller and slower-growing than thoseof Lough Arrow in the same year.

6.6.3 Silver eel

Silver eel from Lough Feeagh are caught inthe downstream traps of the Salmon ResearchAgency. They have been quantified overmany years and were studied intensively be-tween 1990 and 1994 by Russell Poole(1994). Monitoring continues, placing theBurrishoole and its lakes amongst the most

thoroughly studied eel populations in theworld. While the catch is reasonable, it wouldbe unlikely to be economical in terms of thecapital and maintenance costs of the fishinggear.

On the Moy, the Foxford eel weir was demol-ished in the course of the arterial drainageworks in the 1960s and was not replaced. Themore downstream of two eel weirs in Ballinaoperated at the salmon weir and was aban-doned, partly because the catch was scarcelyviable in terms of manpower required andpartly because the nets caught substantialnumbers of salmon smolt. The upstream weiron the right bank continues to operate.

One or two silver eel fisheries on the Gar-vogue have yielded modest catches. The Un-shin River, draining Lough Arrow, has rarelybeen fished legitimately for silver eel. Strongrumours persist of its yielding good catches topoachers.

6.7 Northern Region

The Northern Fisheries Region contains theRiver Erne, with its estuary and two hydrodams, plus the extensive Erne lakes of CountyCavan. The greater part of the area of LoughErne is in County Fermanagh. Co-operationbetween jurisdictions has been the rule formany years. A number of Cavan lakes werestudied in the 1970s (Moriarty, 1973). AustinDuke of Forbairt initiated a cross-borderstudy which was followed by a wide-rangingreport on elvers (McCarthy et al., 1994c). In1997 an Erne eel development project, insti-gated by Mr. Harry Lloyd, Northern Regional

Table 6.6.2. Eel fisheries in the Northwestern Region (s, silver eel; y, yellow eel)

Catchment(km2)


Catch(t)

Catch potential(t)

Glass eelpriority

Lakes

Burrishoole 258 s 2 1 8 ** Feeagh, Furnace

Moy 2,337 s & y 36 2 120 *** Conn, Cullin

Ballasadare 757 s & y 4 1 25 *** Arrow

Garavogue 403 s & y 4 1 28 *** Gill

Total 3,755 46 5 181


37

Fisheries Board and funded jointly by bothGovernments and the Peace and Reconcilia-tion Measure, began a major study of the en-tire catchment and adjoining waters. The aimis to manage the fishery and bring about asustainable yield of 200 t of eel/year (Mat-thews, 1999).

Elsewhere in the region, eel fishing has takenplace but rarely for any long period. All thesubstantial lakes are acid. While one-offcatches involving many year classes may beprofitable, there is little prospect of develop-ing sustainable fisheries capable of a signifi-cant annual yield. A number of rivers, besidesthe Erne, may have potential for elver cap-ture.

6.7.1 Elver

Since 1962 ascending elvers have been

caught at the base of the Cathleen’s Falls hy-dro dam and released in Lower Lough Erneby the Northern Ireland authorities. In 1993agreement was reached whereby a proportionof these elvers would be transported to theCavan lakes. Catches of up to 4 t have beenmade.

The nearby Abbey River has yielded worth-while catches, but the fishery was abandoneddue to excessive vandalism of the trap. A pri-vately-funded experiment has been inprogress for some years on some rivers to thenorth. Rivers listed in Table 6.7.1 have beenselected because of the presence of lakes andlarge estuaries within their catchments. Anec-dotal information refers to substantial runs ofelver on the Leannan.

6.7.2 Yellow eel

The Erne lakes have traditionally yieldedlarge catches of yellow eel to long-liners.Studies in the 1970s (Moriarty, 1973) indicat-ed relatively large stocks of large and excep-tionally fast-growing eel in the Cavan lakes.These observations have been supported bywork in progress in 1998 in the Erne project.

6.7.3 Silver eel

Fisheries on the River Drowes, fed by Lough

Melvin, have been abandoned since the1960s. Small fisheries operate on Erne tribu-taries in County Cavan. A major silver eelfishery in the Erne between Belleek and Bal-lyshannon was abandoned following the con-struction of the hydro-power dams andreservoir. This was replaced by a barrage ofnets upstream at Belleek and between the is-lands at the lower end of Lower Lough Erne.In terms of the area of eel habitat upstream,returns have been extremely low.

Table 6.7.1. Annual glass eel requirements and potential yield of yellow and silver eel in the NorthernRegion

Length(km)

Glass eel(kg)

Elverpotential

Elver gear Area(ha)

Glass eel(kg)

Potential yield(t)

Rivers Lakes

Drowes 39 4 ** fixed Melvin 2,100 210 44

Erne 216 *** trap, tela Erne lakes (including NI)

33,000 3,300 660

Abbey 13 1 *** trap

Eske 39 4 * trap

Clady 31 3 ** trap

Lackagh 24 2 * trap

Leannan 45 5 ** trap

Total 407 19 35,100 3,510 704


38

6.8 The Foyle

From time to time experiments in fyke-net-ting and in elver capture have been carried outin the Foyle catchment. The fyke-netting didnot yield encouraging results and elver cap-ture was not pursued. The generally low-ly-ing nature of the inflowing streams do notprovide attractive sites for elver traps. The in-troduction of the tela, a large floating net, to

Ireland in 1998 provides a possibility for suc-cessful elver fishing in the tidal water. Thesize of the catchment and the shape of the es-tuary give reason to believe that very substan-tial numbers of glass eel may enter the Foyleand experimental netting was to begin in1999.

Table 6.7.2. Eel fisheries in the Northern Region (s, silver eel; y, yellow eel)

Catchment(km2)


Catch(t)

Catch potential(t)

Glass eelpriority

Lakes

Erne 4,372 s & y 50 100 660 *** Fermanagh & Cavan

Total 4,372 50 100 660


39

7 AQUACULTURE

The eel cannot be spawned artificially, andtherefore, all the seed for eel culture must bewild-caught. At present, the shortage of glasseel presents a serious problem for the aquac-ulture industry. There is reason to believe thatsufficient glass eel enter Irish coastal waters.Therefore, although the main thrust of thisdocument has been directed towards the de-velopment of the capture fishery, it indicatesthat the proposed exploratory and experimen-tal fishing for glass eel should yield adequatesupplies to develop the culture industry. Eelculture in effect depends on the existence of aglass eel fishery and cannot develop withouta major input in this field. The culture indus-try could have a negative impact on thespawning stock since the entire production isconsumed and no breeding adults return tothe wild. The situation here is different fromaquaculture of all other species, which in-cludes maintenance of brood stock and pro-duction of eggs.

The optimum temperature for eel growth is24°C. This temperature is rarely attained inthe open in Ireland, and therefore, eel cultureis carried out indoors with artificially heatedwater. To economise on fuel, the water is pu-

rified and re-circulated. This requires ad-vanced technology and a high degree ofsophistication on the part of the operator. Amajor environmental advantage of the systemis that the quantity of liquid effluent is mini-mal and is discharged to the public sewerrather than to open waters. This in turn mini-mises the risk of introduction of pathogens tothe wild populations.

Eel culture has been successfully used to con-tribute to stock enhancement (Rossi et al,1988; Wickström, 1986) and experiments inthis direction are in progress in Ireland. Theproduction of ‘bootlace’ eel for ranchingcould reduce the lead-in time for the develop-ment of the capture fishery from ten years tofive. Promotion of eel culture is currently be-ing undertaken by BIM.

A further benefit of eel culture is that any in-crease in eel production in Ireland gives Irishproducers a stronger hold over the market andreduces many of the overheads – such as thecost of transport – of the finished product.The culture industry, although different inmany ways from the capture fishery, should,therefore, be promoted concurrently.


40

8 NATIONAL STRATEGY

8.1 Costs and benefits

A calculation of the costs and benefits of thedevelopment programme described in Chap-ter 5 was presented to the national workshopon eel held in Dublin in 1998 (Moriarty,1999). The essential conclusion is that thevalue of a single year’s enhanced catch wouldequal the total expenditure of the 10-yearlead-in period. Thereafter, the fishery, interms of maintenance of the stocking, moni-toring and protection scheme, would be worthapproximately ten times the input costs. Thisfigure, based on the value of first sales of theeel, would be the minimum obtainable. It isassumed that the enhanced catch would sup-port a highly profitable processing industry.

8.2 Glass eel and elver

8.2.1 Legal situation

Section 173 of the 1959 Act prohibits the cap-ture, possession of or injury to the ‘fry’ of eel.Although fishing for elver as an item of fooddid take place on the River Feale within livingmemory and the elver is widely used as a baitfor trout, there is no traditional right to fishfor it.

Section 14 of the same Act has been used as amatter of course to permit the capture of elverfor transfer within or between catchmentsand, to a lesser degree, for intensive culture.Section 18 (1, a) of the 1980 Fisheries Actempowers Fisheries Boards to capture glasseel or elver.

The usual conditions in a Section 14 Author-isation, requiring the holder to provide theRegional Board with advance notice of thetime and place of fishing and to inform theDepartment of the destination of the catch,have rarely been observed.

The legal situation, therefore, means that fewmembers of the public have any claim to elverfishing rights. Authorisation under Section 14provides the authorities with the opportunity

for almost unlimited control of the fishery. Itis, therefore, possible to require the fisher togive an exact specification of place of captureand gear used and incorporate a requirementthat a proportion of the catch be released atspecified places within the catchment of cap-ture.

8.2.2 Personnel

Several Boards agree that elver fishingshould be confined to their own personnel.This is sound in principle, since creating apublic right to fish could lead to serious prob-lems in the essential matter of providing stockfor Irish waters. If members of the publicwere to acquire a right to fish for elvers, theycould reasonably demand freedom to seek thebest markets. Two practical difficulties needto be faced. Firstly, a small number of indi-viduals have held Section 14 Authorisationsfor some years and it would be unfair to ter-minate the arrangement. Secondly, effectiveexploratory fishing and, in due course, estab-lishment of a regular fishery are likely to re-quire many more hands than are employed byany Board. An arrangement such as fishingunder contract to a Board would appear to bethe best solution.

8.2.3 Catch distribution

The over-riding principle must be that in eve-ry river in which elver fishing takes place, thefirst requirement is to release upstream a des-ignated quota. This is to ensure that Ireland’sobligation to the international community inconserving breeding stock is observed. Basedon the recommendations in the ConcertedAction (Moriarty and Dekker, 1997) this re-quirement has been calculated as 1 kg/10 kmof main channel stream. It can be included asa condition of any authorisation issued.

In the river-and-lake catchments where fish-ing for yellow or silver eel takes place, or mayreasonably be expected to develop, the elverrequirement will be greater. The grounds for


41

this approach are that, since the fishery forwild eel is based on a no-cost feeding regimeand minimal capital investment, it is in thelong term the most economic means of pro-duction. An added benefit from the nationalpoint of view is that the wild eel fishery is la-bour-intensive. Both these factors, togetherwith the necessity to ensure escapement ofspawners, demand that supply to natural wa-ters takes precedence over supply to intensiveculture. The recommended rate is 0.1 kg/ha.

The next outlet for elver is as ‘seed’ for inten-sive culture within Ireland. The quota to de-velop and then maintain the wild stocks hasbeen calculated as 5 t. This is greater than thecurrent production, but it is anticipated thatdevelopment of the elver fishery will yield acatch substantially greater than this quota.Some flexibility in this respect could be toler-ated in the short term in the interests of main-taining existing intensive culture.

Finally, any surplus to the requirements of thewild eel stocks and the Irish intensive cultureindustry should be exported.

Estimates of the quantities of elver requiredfor the catchment quotas are given in Tables6.1.1 through 6.7.1. These are derived fromthe best data currently available but could berevised upwards or downwards in the light ofmonitoring results.

Funding of the operation should be providedby the State throughout the 10-year develop-ment period. Thereafter, the fishers benefit-ing from this initial stocking could beexpected to contribute by substantially in-creased license fees.

8.3 Yellow eel

All the authorities and a majority of the fish-ers agree that the fishery must be controlled inthe interests of a sustainable yield. Quotasand zonation of public and private fisheriesare the means to the end. These may be fixedin the first place by reference to practice in

other jurisdictions. But it is essential that eve-ry fishery in Ireland be surveyed and subse-quently monitored with a view to adjustingquotas and zones. Priority would be given tothe larger fisheries, such as those on the Shan-non, Corrib and Erne systems, but thelong-term aim should be to survey every lakein which eel fishing is known to take place. Itis not possible to base meaningful long-termregulations on a one-off survey since the de-velopment of the fishery is itself an input intothe dynamics of each population. Regulationsmust embody provision for frequent revisionin the light of the analysis of monitoring.

In Lough Neagh there is no zoning, but quo-tas are strictly enforced by the Co-operative.Because of the existing freedom in the major-ity of eel fisheries for fishers to operate at ran-dom, imposition of zones will not be easy. Agradual process, whereby existing fishersmay continue to enjoy their freedom, but inwhich new entrants are restricted from thestart is likely to be the most effective. Thereis a limit to the amount of ground that a fishercan cover, caused by the time and effort takento set a given length of line or train of nets. Inround figures, each Lough Neagh fisher cov-ers an average of 1 square km/year. Whenstocks have built up, this could be taken as aninitial guideline.

8.4 Silver eel

Silver eel fishing has been abandoned inmany cases due to problems in maintaininggear and in recruiting manpower. There isscope for making serious improvements inthe methods currently in use. In particular, thetraditional fishing by barrages of coghill netsin the narrowest parts of rivers is known to beinefficient and systems such as large fykenets in slower flows may be better. In view ofthe decrease in recruitment throughout Eu-rope, the best plan for the next 10 years couldbe simply to maintain the existing methods,in spite of their inefficiency, in the interests ofmaximising escapement.


42

Damage, frequently fatal, to silver eel takesplace during their passage through turbines.This has not been quantified and needs to beexamined. Should it prove to be small-scale,it would be difficult to make a case for actionsince any remedial measures are likely to becostly. If there is evidence of large-scale dam-age, methods of minimising it need to be de-veloped. It would be preferable to maximisecatch rather than simply leave such a valuableresource to be wasted.

When stocks are restored, the case for re-es-tablishing abandoned silver eel fisheries andfor introduction of new ones should be con-sidered in view of the high value of the silvereel. A measure of protection of the interestsof the occupiers of silver eel fisheries is need-ed. However, the current situation, wherebyobjections are made and sustained againstany new operation upstream of existing fish-eries, needs examination. In effect, the pro-prietor of a fixed engine is able to embargoany future development. A 10-year moratori-um is proposed, after which proposals fornew fixed engines should be considered ontheir merits. Any person who then installs anew fishery would have the right of 10 years’operation before any additional weirs areplaced upstream. Exceptions could be permit-ted in cases where substantial lakes lie up-stream of any weir.

8.5 Management proposals

Management will be the responsibility of theRegional Fisheries Boards, working in co-op-eration with the national authorities and withthe fishery owners and fishers. Some im-provement in relationships between the au-thorities and the fishers will be an essentialfeature. Two 5-year plans for managementare then envisaged.

8.5.1 Liaison between fishers and Boards

A partnership arrangement between fishersand the Board in each Region must be estab-lished. At present a single eel licensee repre-

sents all the eel fishers in the Region. Thisrepresentative is likely to be experienced inonly one phase of eel fishing and may have avested interest in his own fishery. In caseswhere there is a perceived conflict of interestsbetween eel and sport fishers, the eel repre-sentative can be outvoted. Alternatively, allother members of a Board may go along withthe personal views of one eel representativewho may not have the interests of all the fish-ers in his constituency at heart. Progress indeveloping eel fisheries has from time to timebeen blocked by problems arising from suchsituations. Any development plan will need toestablish a system for consultation, such asthe establishment of an eel fishers’ organisa-tion in each Fishery Region and a require-ment for open dealings between theorganisation and the eel representative on theBoard.

8.5.2 First 5-year plan

Enhancement by elver transport is likely torequire a period of 10 years before any sub-stantial improvement in the stocks may takeplace. In the meantime, it is recommendedthat the recommendations of the EIFAC/ICES Working Party on Eel be accepted.They include the view that fishing effortshould not be increased in the absence of en-hancement measures.

An approach, which agrees with this, is to im-pose a moratorium at present levels. In thefirst place, no new licences should be issuedfor yellow eel fishing in the established fish-eries, nor should any licensee be permitted toincrease the number of nets currently allotted.An exception to this might be made so thatone licensee could operate the nets of anotherwho wished to cease fishing.

Monitoring, by sampling the commercialcatch, should take place in all the existingfisheries. If necessary, legislation should bebrought in requiring all licensed fishers toco-operate with designated officials in pro-viding samples and permitting observation.


43

No steps to alter the intensity of fishingshould be taken until the end of the 5-year pe-riod so that a proper analysis of the resultsmay be achieved. This procedure introduces arisk of allowing particular fisheries to col-lapse, but restrictions introduced in any short-er period would make it almost impossible todraw firm conclusions about the performanceof the fishery.

8.5.3 Second 5-year plan

This plan will be based on the analysis of theresults of monitoring in the course of the first5 years. These results are not predictable andcould equally well provide evidence of un-der- or over-fishing. The most important prin-ciple to adopt is to avoid interference with theprogress of the fishery as established for thefirst 5 years. Because of the slow growth rateof the eel and the fact that the fishery capturesa number of year classes, it is not possible tobase predictions on observations made over aperiod of less than 5 years. The longer-termwelfare of the fishery will depend on the abil-ity to make sound predictions.

8.5.4 Designation of waters for fisherydevelopment and for spawning stock

The results of the nationwide studies carriedout by the Department’s scientific staff haveindicated that eel productivity is high in thelime-rich lakes, but in acid lakes eel growth isslow and productivity low. With the excep-tion of rare cases, such as the BurrishooleRiver in which efficient downstream traps areinstalled and used for research purposes, thepotential for developing any acid lakes for eelfishing must be questioned. As mentionedearlier, these lakes yield substantial numbersof spawners, and therefore, potentially con-tribute to the eel resource as a whole. In viewof current concern amongst international au-thorities that spawner escapement should beenhanced, serious consideration should begiven to declaring all such lakes eel sanctuar-ies – except for fishing by single rod and linewhich is highly unlikely to have any negative

impact on the eel population.

River-based eel fishing, in particular for sil-ver eel at weirs, has been widespread but isnow confined to a small number of long-es-tablished installations. Fyke net fishing in riv-ers is effective, but, because of the very smallarea of water involved, is likely to be destruc-tive in the sense of removing within a singleseason five or more year classes from anystretch of water. It is unlikely that an annualsustainable fishery could be developed in anyriver other than the Shannon. Existing fisher-ies, such as those on the Barrow, should besupported but serious consideration should begiven to maintaining rivers as eel sanctuaries,again with the exception of angling.

The primary argument against developing eelfishing in rivers and in acid lakes is econom-ic. An important positive aspect of the idealof eel sanctuaries is that although productionis low, the extent of the unfished rivers andlakes is so large that they make a substantialcontribution to the spawning escapement.

Although there have been many anecdotal ac-counts of a negative impact of commercial eelfishing on other species, widespread observa-tions by scientists have failed to come up withany evidence of risk to other fish populationscaused by eel fishing. The relatively high val-ue of the eel compared to most other speciesand the absence of a legitimate market forthem is an added inducement to the eel fisherto confine himself to his chosen species. Inspite of these facts, strong objections aremade in places to any use of nets to catch fish.In the absence of any sound evidence of in-compatibility between sport fishers and com-mercial eel fishing, objections by localinterests should be met by an informationcampaign rather than by restriction of eel net-ting.

8.5.5 Research and monitoring require-ments

Maximisation of the sustainable catch re-


44

quires sophisticated monitoring throughoutthe eel’s habitat. It is envisaged that the first3 years of the development scheme will re-quire an intensive scientific input. Following

this, monitoring may be carried out effective-ly by a small team. This must be continued asa permanent exercise after the initial 10-yearlead-in period.


45

9 ALL-IRELAND PERMANENT COMMISSION

It is abundantly clear from the foregoing pag-es that the eel, in terms of fishery manage-ment, is a unique entity. In summary, thefollowing factors contribute to this status:

• Extra-territorial breeding with random re-turn of elver

• Stocks depending entirely on breeding inthe wild

• A suitable species for intensive culture,but demanding wild stocks for seed

• Extremely slow growth rate in the wild, re-quiring more than 10 years to reach con-sumer market size

• The greater part of the population inhabit-ing fresh water

• High demand and high prices offered forjuveniles

• High value for consumer market-size fish• The only freshwater fish for which na-

tion-wide commercial fishing is permitted

Expert scientific knowledge of the species islimited and highly centralised and does notextend throughout the regional authorities.Eel representatives on the Regional Boardseither have no first-hand knowledge of thespecies or are specialist fishers concernedwith only one phase of the eel’s complex life

history.

There is accordingly a strong case to be madein favour of pooling the expertise in the formof a statutory commission or authority. Inview of the common interests of eel develop-ment workers North and South, this authoritycould usefully be composed of representa-tives from both jurisdictions. The followingcomposition, with North and South represent-atives for each category, is proposed:

Senior administratorRepresentative of Fisheries BoardsScientific expertManager of major eel fisheryYellow eel fisherSilver eel fisherEel culturist

The authority would:

• supervise the scientific programme

• advise both governments on the progressof the development scheme and

• assume responsibility for the drafting ofregulations based on the scientific infor-mation and input from the trade and fish-ers.

strategy for the development of the eel fishery in irelandoar.marine.ie/bitstream/10793/183/1/no19...

Documents