The
social implications of the present commercial salmon fishing regulations on the
traditional salmon fishermen in the village
of Cheekpoint
By
Andrew
Doherty
Dissertation
submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements of the Batchelor of Arts in Adult
& Community Education.
Waterford
Institute of Technology Adult & Community Education Department
MAY
2008
Supervisor: Maeve O Grady
Acknowledgements
Contents Page No
Introduction 3
Methodology 4
Approach 4
Data Collection 5
Ethical Factors 7
Limitations 8
Literature review 9
The Cheekpoint Salmon
Fishery 15
Government Regulations
1970’s to 2007 19
Findings of primary
research 24
Analysis of findings 27
Conclusion 31
References 33
Bibliography 34
Introduction
Cheekpoint is a small
rural Irish fishing village. Salmon was
the principal fishing resource. However
as Ireland
Methodology
Approach
The school of thought
underpinning this research is Interpretivism.
This paradigm has been utilised internationally for many years, yet in Ireland
This positivist
paradigm believes that human behaviour is essentially rule-governed, and that
it should be investigated by the methods of natural, hard, science. The positivist, normative researcher looks to
theory to establish how reality hangs together or how it might be changed. (Cohen
et al 2007) An interpretive approach is
concerned for the individual, its purpose is to understand the subjective world
of human experience. (ibid)
Therefore in this
research I used qualitative methods, and a theoretical perspective of critical ethnography. I
chose ethnography because the research is based on my own community. critical ethnography is concerned with the
exposure of oppression and inequality in society with a view to emancipating
individuals and groups towards collective empowerment. (Ibid)
Data Collection
There are 5 stages in
the research methodology
Stage 1: compiling
primary record
Stage 2: Preliminary
reconstructive analysis
Stage 3: Dialogical
data collection
Stage 4: Discovering
system relations
Stage 5: Using system
relations to explain findings
(Ibid p187-8)
At stage 1researchers
are comparatively passive, participant observers. By watching and listening a greater sense of
the issues and people involved emerges and helps to clarify the research brief
and, potentially, the validity of the exercise.
(Cohen et al p 187). Stage 1 was
achieved by talking with fishermen and residents from Cheekpoint as the
opportunity arose in the weeks leading up to the research.
Stage 2 is the
preliminary reconstructive analysis.
Arising out of the conversations a number of key points emerged which focused
the most relevant to the fishery and village.
Through this process I came to understand that my own initial
impressions were too simplistic. I
realised for example that how fishermen had been treated in the past was a
crucial element to how they perceived the present. Emerging out of this process
then I refined my original thinking and factored in some of the concerns as
identified by those I had spoken with.
Again this process enhanced the validity of the research in “recovering the
taken-for-granted components of meaning or abstractions that participants have
of a situation – to identify the value systems, norms, key concepts that are
guiding and underpinning situations.” (Ibid p 187)
In Stage 3, I undertook
the dialogical data collection. The
sampling technique I employed was purposive. I identified 2 fishermen from the
village, a sample percentage of 20%.
(Although there were 30 license holders in 2006 about 10 boats fished
regularly). Both men had a family
tradition of fishing. They were also involved in the local community with
various groups and associations. Rather than setting questions I decided to
concentrate on the key areas that emerged out of stage 1 & 2. I negotiated an hour with each man to sit and
chat about the fishery. As this
conversation developed I made handwritten notes on the discussion but also
pointedly asked, where required, for clarification or input on specific areas.
The 5 key areas for
discussion were:
Historical impacts on
the management of the fishery
Where the impetus of
recent legislation has come from
Whether this has
impacted socially on the fisherman, his family, and the community
Ideas they consider
viable for the sustainability of the fishing community
What structures need to
be put in place to achieve this sustainability?
These key areas were
not prompted to the interviewees except where they did not emerge in the
conversation. I did my best to remain in
active listening mode and only clarified as I felt was necessary. Stage 3 facilitates the participants and the
researcher in “...discussing the data with the participants, asking them to
reflect on their own situations, circumstances and lives and begin to theorize
about their lives...(which)... democratizes the research”. (Ibid p 188)
Stage 4 involves
discovering system relations between the fishing community in Cheekpoint and
the wider decision makers and the effects that this has. This process was gleamed from a process of
reflection on the exchanges with fishermen and their interpretation of
these. I was also interested to note my
own thinking and reflection as a member of the community. In this case, I decided to concentrate on
the 3rd key area and specifically the community impacts, because of
space constraints.
Following on from this
Stage 5 uses system relations to explain findings based on the documentary
sources accessed.
Ethical Factors
The ethical factors in
this research relate to the privacy of the participants and their
confidentiality being maintained. To overcome
this both men are identified as participant 1 or 2 in the research. Each man signed a permission slip, and was
advised that they could drop out of the research at any time. They also saw their response and were allowed
to clarify or withdraw them and saw several drafts of the research as it
proceeded for their input.
Limitations
Ethnographic and
naturalistic approaches have problems which are worth noting. Of the ten recorded by Cohen et al I relate
the three most appropriate:
1. The Halo effect: the
researcher’s belief in the goodness of participants, such that the more
negative aspects of their behaviour or personality are neglected or overlooked.
2. Focusing on the
familiar: being too close to the situation so that certain aspects of it are neglected.
The researcher has to make the familiar strange.
3. How to write up
multiple realities and explanations. What if the researcher sees things that
are not seen by the participants?
(Ibid p 189-90)
Researchers using this
methodology, work directly with experience and understanding to build theory on
them. The data thus yielded will include the meanings and purposes of those
people who are their source. Further, the theory so generated must make sense
to those to whom it applies. Theory becomes sets of meanings which yield
insight and understanding of people’s behaviour. The hope of a universal theory is given up;
theories are as varied as the situations and contexts that affect people. (Ibid)
Literature review
There is a wealth of
government produced information on sea fishing and salmon fishing
specifically. However, such publications
are limited, or void of any interpretative or critical analysis. Much of the wider sociological or academic material
that I have accessed has no direct bearing on the fishing sector in Ireland Athens
as a means of securing information was at times frustrating because despite
thousands of potential articles and books, few related to Ireland and none related to traditional
fisheries in Ireland
Some international
research was relevant however; Salmi (2005) examined the traditional sector in Finland and Subramanian’s (2003) account of traditional
(Artisinal) fishing communities in India
Lack of research into
the traditional sector or using qualitative methods, whilst disappointing is
not surprising. Gillmore (1987: p 166) points
out that “There have been technical and policy reports, but the Irish sea fishing industry has received surprisingly
little treatment in the academic literature.”
If our government and academic institutions have little interest in our
sea fishery, it would be no surprise to find it totally ignoring the
traditional river fishery. Tovey &
Share (2003: Pp23-41 ) critique the depth of social research carried out in
Ireland They highlight the lack of
interpretive, critical research and highlight an overreliance on positivist,
fact gathering research that tends towards particular social or state
concerns. Summarising Kane and Bonner
they state “...it is ultimately the absence of a strong phenomenological or
interprevitist strand in Irish sociology that is most problematic and puzzling”
(Ibid p39)
Examples of positivist
writings include Gillmore (1987), Molloy (2004) or de Courcey Ireland (1981)
John de Courcey Ireland’s (1911 – 2006) Ireland’s Sea Fisheries, a History
looks at the movement of the fishery from its earliest times to late
seventies. Although a scholarly,
passionate and insightful text it none the less concentrates on the sea fishery,
ignoring in my view the river based fisheries.
Through it, he advocates for the development and modernisation of the
fishery via larger more technological boats, research, training, investment and
the use of the market. His final line
remarks that “...it is difficult to forecast the future exactly except to say
that it will be one of growth.” (1981: 180).
These concepts of
growth, market forces, investment or that even bigger is better subscribe to a
definition of development of society through modernisation. Tovey & Share explain that in late
modernising societies such as Ireland
Weber (1864-1920)
believed that with modernisation comes a need for control of the population
with the move from traditional culture
and ways of being (customary action). Decision making needs to be rationalised through a system of bureaucratisation. A system evolves through planning with civil
servants at its head to create the new rules and ways of being for people: rational action. (Ibid pp 8-16)
Whatever about the
origins of the modern Irish state the current trend in decision making in Irish
society is a Corportist model of governance, where by specific interest groups
gain access to decision making in partnership with government. Rational decisions are then taken by these
groups (supported by the govt bureaucracy) who guarantee the support of their
individual sectoral interests. The
arrangement benefits the state as there is less conflict and resistance to
state policies. For groups outside this
arrangement however, access to decisions or power can be denied. (Ibid pp 85-8)
How has modernity impacted
Irish fishing. To answer this we will look
to the developments in agriculture. Tovey
& Share describe the efforts of the Irish state to modernise farming. This process began in the 50’s but really
took hold in the 1960’s. With key inputs
from American practices towards the ‘food industry’ brought back by Irish born,
American university trained agricultural ‘experts’. This was the beginning of ‘productionism’
which concerned itself with “...narrow...productive function of
agriculture...and disregarded other important functions such as provision of
employment, the underpinning of a vibrant rural economy, or the care and
management of the environment” (2003: p57)
Other features of
modern farming involved the maximum distance between farm and family so that
economic decision making is not clouded by family concerns typified as
emotional or irrational decision making, Farm women were encouraged to withdraw
from the activity and leave business to the men and that farmers should reject
‘local knowledge’ and depend of experts such as agriculture scientists and
advisors to maximise the profits of their ‘farm business’. (Ibid p55)
Three key changes are listed in terms of how farming is practiced. However, these could very easily match
changes in fishing. They are
specialisation, commoditisation and scientisation. (Ibid. P 59-60)
All of these changes
have brought significant change to rural communities. An implied understanding of these changes is
that those free to participate have access to significant financial, property
and or educational resources to participate.
What happens to those rural dwellers in fishing communities who do not.
Tovey 1996 saw
significant change in government policy in the nineties driven by EU policy. The state began to look at wealth creation opportunities
instead of jobs and to take a more national perspective instead of a regional
or local view. Therefore there was a key
perspective shift in the country with a view that resources were there for the
good of the state and that the effective development and utilisation of these
resources would enhance the entire state and ‘trickle down’ to all. However, those who were not able to
participate in this were pushed further into the margins of rural society and
their use and presence within the rural became increasingly questioned. (1996: p132-4). Haase (2007) explores rural deprivation
indicators and coins the phrase “Opportunity Deprivation” to describe the lack
of access that rural dwellers may have to work, education, health etc. What is crucial is that where people live
away from urban centres, the opportunities they have for a decent quality of
life is much restricted.
Fishing communities had
particular issues however. Peace (1996,
2001) highlights in particular the role of salmon fishing to depressed rural
fishing communities as a means of injecting much needed money into the
communities. However there is a
reluctance by rural dwellers to admitting problems or seeking help. Rural poverty does not lend itself to easy
definition. For example in 1996 rural
dwellers experienced poverty at 2/3 the rate to their urban counterparts. Yet the image of poverty and disadvantage as
understood in the country and portrayed by politics and media was of an urban
wasteland, dangerous people, drug problems and hopelessness. (Curtain et al
1996). The same report goes on to
highlight that the struggle for rural communities to be recognised is further
complicated by the “concentration of population, government, financial,
business and educational institutions and the media in the cities” ibid P 76
Gorz quoted in Tovey
& Share critiqued Marx from an environmental standpoint. Consumption is
crucial to sustaining capitalism.
However, with increasing production and consumption come increasing
environmental degradation. Rather than
trying to offset this, modern economies are looking for ways to sustain this
through strategies defined by Gorz such as “Detrimental Appropriation” and
“Exclusive Access”. The former refers to
the monopolising of scarce resources to a minority interest. The latter, refers to the increase in value
of a product where access is restricted.
(Ibid pp502 – 504)
Paulo Freire’s
(1921-1997) spoke passionately on the need for those on the margins of society
to be supported. His vision of emancipatory
education was very much contained in the practices of American educator and
activist Myles Horton (1905 – 1990).
Horton’s folk schools worked with those on the margins of Americas
“Hortons
belief in the imperative of peoples control over their own lives and the means
of production paralled his belief in the control of the learning activity by a
circle of learners whose experience and problems were being discussed...Dependancy
on authority was...antithetical to freedom of thought and expression...”p251
Bradley (2003) explains
the difficulties in working with men in rural areas of Donegal affected by
marginalisation. Working from Freirean
principles, his contact, trust building and subsequent activities highlighted
several issues invisible on the surface particularly; poor health, loneliness,
depression, alcohol dependence and lack of education. They are represented by no one and their
lives and issues are not depicted on TV. This need for understanding and
political action was never more necessary if isolated rural communities are to
stand their ground against the dominant cultural, social, economic and
political trend of this new century.
Cheekpoint fishery.
Cheekpoint
is located 7 miles downstream from Waterford
City
Undoubtedly
the salmon fishery was the most rewarding financially and hence the most
important. It was always a changing and
adapting way of existence, however the most significant changes started to
occur in the early 1960’s. Fishing had
for years been an under resourced and mismanaged entity but the Fianna Fail government
had plans for fishing and published a white paper to lay the ground work in
1962. Essentially it was about
modernising the fleet, expanding our waters and increasing the consumption of
fish at home. (de Courcey Ireland
Locally
this led to big changes. Fishermen were able
to avail of hire purchase schemes to get new boats, Dunmore East was being
developed to encourage sea fishing and new nets were being introduced,
invisible Monofilament nets. Fishermen
in villages such as Cheekpoint were quick to realise the advantages of these
nets and were (according to local sources) among the first to try the new
technology on the sea. Under license
from the Regional Fishery Board, they we free to fish from Cheekpoint to Mine
Head in west Waterford
Coastal
sea fishing in the past had been curtailed in relation to salmon. The old style hemp nets were not suited to
the development of a coastal sea fishery for salmon. “...drifting was only effective at night time
and with rough sea conditions with hemp nets.” (Jenkins p 201) Essentially it
was too dangerous to expand. However
with the arrival of new types of netting fishing could be carried out in daylight
and in good weather. Although
monofilament nets were illegal fishermen got around the legal issues by
claiming that the nets were being used in ground fishing (for which they were
perfectly legal).
“Between the early 1960s and the
early 1970s there was a marked increase in the number of drift net commercial
licences (from 363 in 1962 to 1,048 in 1974), while the proportion of the
overall salmon catch taken by drift nets rose from 19% in 1960 to 49% in 1970
and a peak of 84% by 1986.” (Indecon report, 2003:
p.iv)
The
increase in licences and catch was taking place on the coast, away from the
traditional salmon fishermen in Cheekpoint.
If that had only meant a drop in income it would have been bad enough,
but there were other factors in play.
The
country at large was very aware of the dispute between government and driftnet
fishermen on the coast, thanks in part to anglers raising the issue of falling
catches and internationally via environmental organisations like Greenpeace. There was a belief amongst fishermen that
drift netting was the scapegoat, with agencies ignoring govt policy on
forestation, agricultural pollution and housing developments all of which
impacted on spawning grounds. There were
also murmurings about global warming and campaigns about natural predation by
seals and cormorants. None of which
appeared to get any air time in the media.
There
was pressure then to be seen to do something to curb over fishing. However, patrolling the coast was extremely
difficult and the ports along the coast were reputed to be no-go areas for the
fishery patrols. For more see Peace
(1996: pp96-97) Cheekpoint fishermen under
financial pressures were forced into more desperate measures, taking risks with
weekend and out of season fishing, and at times using monofilament nets even
though they could be spotted from the shore.
What was suspected locally at the time was that bailiffs were using
their patrols in estuary villages to make their efforts look good. Reporting to their board they could indicate
how many patrols, how many boats checked and the strings of nets seized. They at least created the perception of doing
something.
With
each raid in the village came suspicion of who wasn’t caught and whether there
were informers in the community.
Whatever about corruption in the village what later emerged was
corruption in the Fishery board: "...corruption at the highest level in
The Southern Regional Fishery Board resulted in its chief executive been
removed from his position and the dismissal of two senior fishery inspectors
added further suspicion as to the reason why so many of the convictions at the
time were against small boat owners who carried the least amount of nets.” (Marine
Times June 2007)
This
is an overview of the situation facing fishermen in the village of Cheekpoint Waterford
Port
Also
beyond the scope is a consideration of the representative bodies that were in
place to support fishermen. Generally,
little is known locally of such groups.
Some committees started up ad hoc and petered out. The Southern Regional Fishery Board was
considered by many of relevance in the early years and a local man did
represent the village. Here again,
little is known in the village of this structure. In the next part we will look at government
regulation, much of which was visited upon Cheekpoint, without any consultation
or knowing.
Government
regulation 1970’s - 2007
As
already noted Cheekpoint fishermen believe the government had not provided much
leadership in the salmon drift-net sector.
There appeared to be no regulation on the coast and nothing but
regulation in the rivers. Despite this view, some research was being
done. For example there were three
reviews of the salmon fishery including the Inland Fisheries Commission (1975) the
Central Fisheries Board (1986) and the Salmon Review Group (1987). Fundamentally
they all said the same thing, the fishery on the coast needed to be
controlled.
The
nineties continued with further studies and reports including; Radford et al
1991, Fingleton et al 1993, O.Connor et al 1994, Gargan et al 1997. The build up of reports and media attention
along with lobbying from fishermen for some resolutions around the issue led to
the establishment of the Salmon Management Task Force in 1995. The subsequent report led to new conservation measures introduced in
1997. These measures significantly cut
the salmon season in terms of duration, days per week and hrs per day and most
significantly for “end of the line fisheries” (this term refers to Cheekpoint’s
location. Salmon first hit the coast at
Donegal and swim round the west coast) such as Cheekpoint led to the legalisation
of monofilament nets. (Indecon report.
P. 22)
Other
recommendations not enacted in 1997 were in the planning stages and in the next
few years would be realised. The first
was the creation of the National Salmon Commission in 1999. Using a corporatist approach it was charged with
the task of determining the future conservation of the salmon resource. In 2001 it implemented the next stage of
conservation measures, including the introduction of carcass tagging (a tag for each salmon caught, without a
tag you could not fish) and logbook scheme (each fish had to be recorded given
the date, time, size and who it was sold to) and the setting of a Total
Allowable catch (TAC) of 219,619 salmon imposed for commercial fisheries in
2002. (Report of the
Independent Salmon Group. P.85)
In
the subsequent years the Total Allowable Catch deteriorated for the commercial
sector and resulted in falling quotas for drift-netting year on year. Fishermen in Cheekpoint were severely
penalised under the system. Tags were
distributes based on the previous year’s catch.
Because of the villages location this resulted in fewer tags year on
year.
In 2002 alone there were several reports, two from
the ESRI and three on behalf of the North Atlantic Salmon
Conservation Organisation (NASCO) including Mawle et al, Isaksson et al and Ruseski. All these reports highlighted the economic
value of the salmon as a national resource and highlighted the value add from
tourism.
2003
saw the launch of the Indecon report on behalf of the Central Fisheries
Board. Labelled an economic/
Socio-economic study of wild salmon essentially undertook a data analysis of
the money being raised from salmon and highlighted the struggle to earn a living
for the commercial sector estimating;
“the average (mean)
income per week from salmon sales during the 2002 season was equal to €536,
though the median was much lower at €195, indicating that incomes generated
were relatively high among a small proportion of fishermen but that the vast
majority of fishermen earned very low levels of income from salmon fishing. The
income generated by fishermen is also concentrated over a limited period during
the calendar year” (Indecon report, p.
vi)
The
Angling lobby was also campaigning against drift-netting particularly in the
media. For example an Irish Independent
story under the headline “Save our salmon, urges TK Whitaker”. The article attacked government inaction on a
salmon drift net ban. Whitaker is described
as “...one of the primary architects of the modern Irish state” It goes on to
highlight the need for a ban to maintain the economic value of salmon for the
State. Tourism chiefs highlighted the
value, claiming that their research had shown that a foreign angler caught fish
was worth €432, a fisherman’s €22.
(Sunday Independent July 24, 2005)
2005
saw another development when the Joint
Committee for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources set up the
Sub-Committee on Salmon Drift-Netting. The
committee reported in October 2006. The
report had one crucial recommendation that government policy should move to
what was termed as a single stock management (essentially an end to sea
fishing). Because this transition would
take time the committee proposed a voluntary compensatory and/or set-aside
scheme to achieve this transition. The committee acknowledged the role fishing
played in rural communities and stressed that their recommendations were aimed
at recognising not just the pressure salmon were under but also these
communities also. (Report
of the Independent Salmon Group p. 73)
The
2006 Salmon season saw the erection, countrywide, of posters by anglers
announcing that it was the last year of salmon drift netting. Locally in Cheekpoint fishermen believed
lobbying, directly and through the media by NASCO of the Irish government and Europe was paying dividends. Ireland
Previously
in March 2006 the government had established the Independent Salmon Group. This three man team were appointed with the specific remit to advise the Government on
managing the salmon resource. Most
believed that it would decide on similar lines to the sub-committee. However, the group recommended a ban on
salmon drift netting with the subsequent introduction of what was termed a
“Salmon Hardship Scheme” to pay off fishermen who wanted to avail of a
government package.
Controversially it rewarded fishermen based on catches
recorded in log book returns of the previous five years, there-by directly
reducing the compensation package to fishermen in the rivers. These men, many who had devoted their lives
to the fishery found that they were entitled to a pittance. Of the 156 licences in Waterford
Findings of the primary
research
The findings of
elements 1 and 2 have been included in the Cheekpoint Fishery and Government
regulation. Due to space, questions 4
& 5 have been set aside and these findings will concentrate on question 3, and
specifically the social impacts on the community.
From the outset it is
worth distinguishing that participants felt that many in the community would
think there had been no impact from the recent salmon closure. It is mostly felt by those directly involved
in fishing. They agree that as fishermen
they are much less affected now than they would have been twenty or thirty
years ago. On the occasions where I
challenged the men around improvements nationally via the Celtic tiger I was
roundly challenged myself with rebuttals such as poor health, stress,
commuting, shift work, uncertainty of work, no community spirit, rise in
alcohol and drugs and so much more.
The community has been
impacted by the loss of commercial activity and the coming and going of boats
and crews. Money was earned and
predominantly spent in the community in the past. There was vibrancy about. As one man said “a trip to the post office
could have taken from a half hour to a half day in the past. You’d be stopped chatting to people, now it
takes five minutes”.
This lack of people is
blamed on factory shift work and people being employed in Waterford
Participants believe that
the lack of people about has a negative effect on the community. It impacts on how people feel about their
security. Previously, if you were sick
or incapacitated there were people to call.
They might drop you in a dinner or a feed of fish. Messages would be run, There was someone to
talk to. Fishermen in the past were
around because the village was their place of work, landing fish, mending nets,
repairing boats.
Other concerns are that
young men don’t have the same opportunities to come of age in the ways they did
in the past. Although many have jobs
through local restaurants which are well paid, clean, safe and “wouldn’t tax
you”, it is considered a far cry from the training, challenge and satisfaction
young men had in the past through fishing.
Fishing was a method of
schooling in itself. Young men were
taught valuable lessons. For example
they needed to learn the capabilities of boat and themselves. For example catching a river marker bouy and how
to extract yourself, nets and boat. This took common sense skills required,
these have to be passed on – boat handling, fishing skills and psychologically
– its not the end of the world to make a mistake. Other skills around salmon fishing were more
unique and as it was explained would never be found in a book, including the
role played by wind, tide, moon, and season.
These will all be lost in the future it was felt as there will be no
means of passing them on.
Perhaps the greatest
loss is the contact with other fishermen on a daily or hourly basis. As a fisherman you were in contact on the
quayside, as boats passed each other, or waited for particular drifts. A key factor of this was the swapping of
pieces of information vital for knowing how and where the fish were
“running”. Men also cooperated around
the seasonal activities such as hauling out boats for overwintering or repair
and the making and repairing of nets. These were not so much tasks as occasions. There loss, ultimately, engenders isolation
as men are more inclined to stay inside if they know there will be no one to
see or talk to.
All in all,
participants felt that previously the river had a deeper significance for the
community. It derived an income, was a
source of food, pleasure, challenge. It
was a place for regatta’s where communities competed against each other and was
a mode of transport to and from the city, but also to dances and social
occasions in other communities around the estuary. The village, it is felt has embraced the car
and the city and turned its back almost completely on the river. Though the salmon closure came on the heels
of these wider changes, it cements them to a large extent. Without the Salmon fishery, there is little
to hold the fishery in place.
Analysis of the Findings
Traditional fishermen
in Cheekpoint have been sidelined by a modernising state, intent on developing
the fishing industry into a major economic food producer. Through “productionism” the state has
encouraged bigger boats, larger, centralised harbours and single stock fisheries. Through such concepts as scientisation,
commoditisation and specialisation, the state has worked to transform the
fishery sector. For villages such as
Cheekpoint this has led to less fish, greater competition for stocks and
ultimately an unravelling of the traditional ways of life for fishing families.
Worse, the modernising
concepts are proving to be an antithesis to the traditional method of fishing
in the community. Fishing, which for
generations used a multitude of methods, concentrated on several species and
was supported, where necessary by other household income, has been ostracised
by the dominant view of fishing.
Salmi (2005) refers to
this rural mobility as “pluriactivity” and highlights that the importance of
appreciating small scale fisheries “...lies in the importance of these
activities at a family level and as part of local communities” (p22) Such an
activity “...acts to protect the local community from crisis in the market and
in the natural resource availability.” (P 24)
The State plays a
significant role in alienating traditional methods of fishing and earning a
living. It does this through the bureaucratisation
of the system of governance and the availability of experts to tell locals what
to do. By moving from “Customary Action”
to “Rational Action” fishermen have had their confidence in their knowledge
undermined. They have been encouraged to
invest in bigger boats and move to Dunmore East. Traditional craft which were built and
repaired locally have been undermined by fibreglass boats built elsewhere. Fishermen are encouraged to replace rather
than repair. The onus is on bigger
boats, greater quantity of gear and specialising in catch. Fishermen who resist
the dominant view are labelled hobby fishermen, part timers or not “go-ahead”.
Subramanian, giving an
Indian insight, but reflecting my personal view on the mistreatment of the
traditional Irish sector, relates how artisanal fishermen were manoeuvred aside
by mechanised trawler-men. More
politically aware, they “...crafted a politics of modernity that underscores
their difference from the artisanal sector and their identification with a
national middle class defined by its commitment to development” (p140) Defining themselves very much as go ahead, by
stressing their income, property, commitment to the national interest, they
highlighted their interests as being the states interest. (pp140 – 141)
Fishermen in Cheekpoint
have been completely ignored in the development of fishery policy that has
sought off shore development and commercialisation. Yet the damage to Cheekpoint, culturally,
socially and economically has not raised a blip on the governments radar. This lack of voice or representation, what
Peace (2001) refers to as a “Politics of Powerlessness” underlines the damage
caused by corporatist approaches to decision making and begs the question in
who’s interests are decisions being taken.
As Gorz explains it through his theories of “Detrimental Appropriation”
and “Exclusive Access” perhaps what we have seen is the simple shift in access
to a national resource from traditional fisherman to the tourism industry
legitimised by the bureaucracy of the state.
Perhaps the greatest
damage has been the impact on individual fishermen and their self concept. Salmon is not just the most economically
important fish in the community, it is valued for the skill it takes to
catch. As Peace 1996 recognises “Because
of the singular qualities of the salmon – that he is male, that he is powerful,
that he is clever and a major challenge to fishing expertise – he commands a
social and political value which no other fish can match. Through catching him, men ensnare elements of
their own identities” (pp 98 -9)
The factors leading to
the decline in Salmon stocks need to be addressed. However, communities such as Cheekpoint will
pay dearly over and above other communities with the abilities to adjust to
other fishing methods. There is only the
Eel fishery which could assist in Cheekpoint but that has its own difficulties
and would collapse if similar numbers turned to it. That however is not the issue. Put simply places like Cheekpoint need salmon
fishing for more than just the income.
It is essential as a way of life, keeps traditions alive and allows for
skills, culture and relationships to be fostered and sustained within a small
community. The answers are not contained
in an income from a city job. The
struggle is to be allowed to work, and practice your way of life in your own
community.
Fishermen have been
ostracised from their traditional outlook on the fishery by decades of
modernising theory from politicians, business, media, bigger fishing interests
and institutions such as the EU. They
have not lost sight of the importance and centrality of the salmon fishery, but
they have been silenced and pushed aside.
Haase (2007) refers to “opportunity deprivation”. However, as this research has shown, it is
not opportunities that the men lack, rather an opportunity to do what it is
they feel born to do. Thus their problem
is not opportunity deprivation, rather identity deprivation.
Unless and until these
unique men decided to work together to advocate for their distinct way of life,
the modern state will ignore them. They
will remain as invisible as the men described earlier by Noel Bradley in
Donegal. Educational programmes such as
those organised by Horton are exceptions in the Irish context to visionaries such
as Bradley. Communities such as
Cheekpoint need these kind of programmes.
They need the injection of resources and expertise, not to educate, but
as Horton envisioned to “...supplement what they need to know to complete the
analysis” (Jarvis p 253)
Conclusion
The research sought to
explore the social impacts on Cheekpoint of government regulation in the commercial
Salmon fishing sector. Using a critical
ethnography approach, it seeks the views of local fishermen on the changes,
particularly on the community. Through
it emerges a view of the modernising state trampling traditional ways of being
in the rush towards economic and political progress. Worse, it mocks those values, traditions and
knowledge as being backward and something to be ashamed of. Villages such as my own are encouraged via
policy, media, political decisions and much more to turn their back on
traditional ways of being and to embrace a modern lifestyle.
Yet this modern
lifestyle has been harshly critiqued by the participants of this research. Participants resent the hustle and bustle of
present day living. Their insights thoughtfully
considered, long discussed, carefully enunciated show deep appreciation for a
way of life almost lost and vivid reasons for why it should be sustained. Key considerations include: identity, values,
knowledge, practices and ways of being and knowing.
The fishermen are
keenly aware of how they have been treated, and although powerlessness is a key
feature of their response, this should not be confused with passiveness. Intelligent and capable, they have been worn
down by faceless decision makers, who however intelligent, know little of what
these men do of fish, boats or the River Suir.
With careful and considered inputs such men and such villages may yet
again be able to sustain themselves.
Many questions remain
for me. I am keenly aware of the gaps in
my understanding around the decision making in the fishery sector. I know little of the representative groups
for fishermen, despite being a fisherman for 15 years. I would like to better understand the role of
the fish farming industry and the angler lobby (both national and
international). I would also like to
explore the current sustainability movement to examine how it might benefit
communities such as Cheekpoint, given that traditional fishers were working on
some of the principles of sustainability long before the phrase was in common
usage. A hope would be to see a similar analysis of the community from a
woman’s perspective.
Perhaps the most
important area for consideration for myself now is to seek ways to work
positively to effect an outcome to sustain Cheekpoint as a Fishing
community. To work collectively and
critically with fishermen to challenge and develop a fishing future that is
sustainable.
References
Bradley.N. 2003.
Cited in the Adult Learner. Aontas.
Dublin
De
Courcey Ireland Irelands Sea Glendale Dublin
Gillmore.
D.A. 1987. “The Irish Sea Fisheries: Development and curtailment of a renewable
resource industry” American
Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 46, No. 2 [Accessed via Athens
Indecon. 2003.
An economic / socio-economic evaluation of the wild salmon in Ireland Dublin
Independent
Salmon Group. 2006. Report of the Independent Salmon Group. Dept of Communications Marine & Natural
Resources. Dublin
Jarvis.P.Ed, 2001.
2nd ed, Twentieth
Century Thinkers in adult & continuing education. Kogan Page.
London
Jenkins.
J.G. 1974. Nets and Coracles. David & Charles. Devon ,
England
Marine
Times. What now for salmon
fishermen? June 2007. Vol. 20 No. 01 pp3-4
Measuring
Rural Poverty. Trutz Haase Kathy
Walsh. Rural Development Advisory
Committee. 2007 pending
Peace.
A. 1996.
“When the salmon comes: the politics of summer fishing in an Irish
community” Journal of Anthropoligical Research.
Vol 52, pp 85 – 106.
Peace.
A. 2001.
A world of fine difference, The social architecture of a modern Irish
village. UCD Press. Dublin
Salmi. P.
2005. “Rural Pluriactivity as a Coping Strategy in Small-Scale Fisheries.” Sociologia Ruralis, Vol 45, Number 1/2, [Accessed via Athens
Salmon
Management Task Force. 1998. Report on the implementation of the
recommendations of the Salmon Task Force.
Marine Institute. Dublin
Subramanian. A.
“Modernity from below: local citizenship on the south Indian coast”
UNESCO 2003. Published by Blackwell Publishing
Ltd., [Accessed
via Athens
Tovey.
H. Share. P. 2003.
A Sociology of Ireland Dublin
Bibliography
Brabazon.
W. 1848.
The deep sea and coast fisheries of Ireland Dublin
Central
Fisheries Board. 1986. Inland Fisheries . Strategies for Management
and Development, Central
Fisheries Board. Dublin
Colfer.
B. 2004.
The Hook Peninsula Cork
University Cork
Curtis.
J.A. Estimating the Demand for Salmon
Angling in Ireland
Curtis.
J.A. The Value of the Wild Atlantic
Salmon Fisheries. ESRI, November 2002.
Fingleton,
P. and B. J. Whelan. The Economic Consequences of Phasing Out the Irish Drift
Net Salmon Fishery. ESRI, November 1993.
Freire.
P. 2007.
Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum.
New York
Gargan
P.G., Whelan. K.F, and Whelan. B.J. An
Illustrative Grilse Survival Model for an Irish SalmonFishery, in Recreational
Fisheries . Social, Economic and Management Aspects by Phil Hickley (Ed.),
1997, Fishing News Books, Page 106-115.
Inland
Fisheries Commission. 1975. Report
of the Inland Fisheries Commission. Stationery Office. Dublin
Mawle,
Guy W., The Value of the Atlantic Salmon and its Fisheries in England and Wales
O’Connor.
K and O.Maolchallann. S, Recreational
Sports Fisheries . A Contribution to Socio-economic Improvement in County Donegal
Radford,
A. F., Hatcher, A. C., Whitmarsh, D. J. An Economic Evaluation of Salmon
Fisheries in Great Britain
Salmon
Review Group. 1987. Report of the Salmon Review Group
Department of the Marine, Dublin
Ruseski,
G. (Fisheries and Oceans Canada Canada
Isaksson.
A and Oskarsson. S. Directorate of Freshwater Fisheries, Economic
Value of Icelandic Salmon (Salmo salar L.) in Angling and Net Fisheries.
Prepared for the Technical Workshop on Social and Economic Values of Atlantic
Salmon, NASCO, 2002.
Molloy.
J. 2004.
The Irish Mackrel Fishery.
Killybegs Fishermens Organisation & marine Institute.
Watson.
D, Whelan. C, Williams. J, Blackwell. S, 2005 Mapping Poverty: National,
Regional and County
Patterns Dublin
Comments