08/04/2026
New Regulations Announced
https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-climate-energy-and-the-environment/publications/inland-fisheries-bye-laws-2026/
We acknowledge the inclusion of certain positive measures within the proposed regulations, notably the closure of salmon harvest in September and the further curtailment of spring fisheries. These steps reflect, at least in part, the serious and ongoing decline in wild salmon stocks and the need for a precautionary response.
However, the proposed seasonal bag limit of seven salmon represents a substantial departure from original management advice. It is not supported by the available evidence and cannot be defended as a meaningful conservation measure. The data are clear: the majority of anglers harvest three or fewer salmon, and only a small minority take higher numbers. A limit set at seven does not materially reduce exploitation and therefore fails to deliver any significant conservation benefit.
At a time when many river systems are failing to meet conservation limits, and where surpluses are declining even in historically productive catchments, such an approach risks undermining the credibility of the management framework. Conservation policy must be grounded in biological reality and evidence, not shaped by short-term considerations or competing interests.
We are also deeply concerned by the continued operation of commercial salmon fisheries. We await the forthcoming Control of Salmon Fishing Order to determine the extent to which these proposals may increase commercial exploitation. Any expansion beyond previously understood management parameters would be incompatible with the urgent need to reduce pressure on already vulnerable stocks.
There is also a clear need for specific restrictions on commercial fishing activity during periods of low water, when salmon are particularly vulnerable. In such conditions, exploitation can become concentrated over short timeframes, resulting in a disproportionate share of the annual harvest being taken in a limited period. This level of intensity is inconsistent with sustainable management and must be addressed.
A key gap in the current proposals is the absence of timely, in-season data. There is a clear need for mandatory in-season reporting of angling catches and harvests to enable responsive management. Without such information, it is not possible to assess exploitation levels as the season progresses or to introduce appropriate measures where pressure becomes excessive.
We are also concerned by the continued blanket closure of certain rivers where stocks are below conservation limits. While we fully recognise the need to protect vulnerable populations, a strictly enforced prohibition on all angling activity may not represent the most effective or proportionate approach in every case. There is a strong body of evidence indicating that, when conducted appropriately, catch-and-release angling can operate with very low levels of mortality. Allowing tightly regulated, catch-and-release fisheries on closed rivers could support ongoing engagement, stewardship, and compliance among the angling community, while maintaining a high level of protection for returning salmon. In addition, the complete absence of angling activity may have unintended consequences, as the presence of responsible anglers can contribute to passive surveillance and deterrence, potentially reducing illegal activity and other pressures that may disproportionately impact already vulnerable stocks. Such an approach would need to be underpinned by clear best-practice guidelines, seasonal safeguards, and adaptive management, but it offers a balanced alternative that aligns conservation objectives with the long-term sustainability of the fishery.
As a conservation-focused body, our concern is the long-term protection and restoration of wild salmon populations. In that context, we will be publishing a voluntary code aimed at reducing exploitation and promoting a stronger culture of restraint and stewardship across the fishery. While such measures can support conservation outcomes, they cannot compensate for insufficient regulation.
What is required is a coherent, evidence-based approach that aligns management measures with conservation needs. The current proposals fall short of that standard and risk prolonging the decline they are intended to address.
