Eel ban the right decision to save a species

IN RECENT years we’ve heard a lot about the decline in stocks of salmon and sea trout in Ireland and abroad, but less about the plight of the humble eel.

But eels are in real trouble, even more trouble than salmon and sea trout.

In 2002 the International Council for the Exploration of the SEA (ICES) declared that stocks of European eels were so depleted they were now “outside safe biological limits”. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has carried out a study which resulted in eels being declared critically endangered. This is the last category before extinct.

Eels are not easy to count accurately but the best scientific estimates are that populations are between 1% and 5% of what they were before 1980. This is a dramatic collapse.

One of the results of this was an EU decision calling on all member states to produce an eel management plan that takes into account the rapid decline in numbers. Ireland has just announced its plan and it involves the closure of commercial eel fisheries for three years. In 2012 the situation will be reviewed and the ban may be extended further.

The scientists are not sure why eel populations have crashed. Theories include over-fishing, particularly of elvers. Elvers are eaten in Europe but the bulk of the catch, which is extremely valuable, is exported to Japan where they are a delicacy.

Other possibilities include a parasite that was accidentally imported into European eel farms from the far east and then escaped into the wild. Some experts think an increase in the numbers of cormorants feeding in fresh water is a factor. Cormorants are particularly fond of eels and find them relatively easy to catch. Climate change may also be playing a part.

Most people know the extraordinary story of the life cycle of the eel. They are catadromous, which means they spawn in salt water, in the Sargasso Sea, and then cross the Atlantic to spend their adult lives in fresh water. This is the opposite to salmon and sea trout which are anadromous and spawn in freshwater before moving to the sea.

The life cycle of the eel, in particular it first Atlantic crossing as a tiny, leaf-shaped and transparent larva, makes the species extremely vulnerable to any change in ocean currents resulting from global warming.

But whatever factor, or combination of factors, is responsible for the decline the Government decision is the correct one. It’s impossible to defend a commercial fishery based on such a vulnerable fish. Eel fishing is more important in the North than in the Republic but it has gone on here in the past. Rather strangely, the bulk of the licences were held by the ESB, so I hope the new ban is not reflected in our electricity bills.

Unfortunately, the ban is not going to result in an immediate reversal of the decline. The reason for this is that eels can live for up to 50 years, though a normal generation is reckoned to be nearer 20 years. So the earliest we might hope for any sign that this year’s ban is doing any good is around 2020. In contrast, salmon generations are much shorter and so is the potential payback time for the ban on drift netting at sea.

Not everyone likes eels — they’re slimy and they writhe and they’re uncomfortably snake-like. But there’s no question that they’d be a great loss if they disappeared from our waters. Apart from anything else, they are a particularly nutritious food for animals like otters and birds like herons. Let’s hope that a concerted international effort can save them.

* [e-mail]