are different legislations at the different EU Member States that regulate some
introduced species (mainly those introduced from America). However, stocking
several salmonid species is currently allowed and, surprisingly, it is usually sustained or approved by governmental agencies (Miró and Ventura 2013), being in
clear contradiction with conservation legislation.
1 The most ambitious initiative
existent at European scale is the Natura 2000 network, aiming to protect all species
and habitats of special conservation concern (included in the habitats directive).
Member States are committed to guarantee the conservation of Natura 2000 habitats
and species which, for the case of high mountain lakes and some of their species
(e.g. some amphibians, aquatic plants and invertebrates), is incompatible with
allowing fish introductions.
Data from the western USA showed that areas with different angling management practices have a different probability of finding introduced trout in high
mountain lakes, which is lower in National Parks where fishing is prohibited
(Knapp 1996; Wiley 2003). Within the Pyrenees, Miró and Ventura (2013, 2015)
compared the spread of new fish introductions among different areas of the
Aigüestortes i Estany de Sant Maurici National Park and found that in the area
where fishing has been forbidden since 1988, the number of lakes with fish stopped
increasing just at the time of the prohibition, while at the other areas, it continued to
increase (Fig. 8.7). These common findings in several mountain areas over the
world illustrate that the only management practice that has had a positive effect up
to present in the protection of lakes is the prohibition of fishing.
Although the most obvious route to avoid introductions would be for governmental agencies to stop stocking trout, this is complicated by the fact that there have
been several other agents involved in these introductions in addition to governmental agencies through the history of trout introductions (e.g. local citizens in the
past or local fishermen’s societies in the past decades). As a result, Miró and
Ventura (2013, 2015) found some lakes that have been stocked recently without the
collaboration of the administration.
In this context, protected areas sometimes provide the favourable local context
(i.e. the presence of a surveillance personnel) which is essential to enforce the
protection measures (fishing ban, stocking halt) and restoration projects (fish
eradications). Therefore, a new and general attitude of mountain protected areas
towards less permissive policies concerning fish management is the first and most
urgent measure to stem the ecological consequences of the fish invasion.
1
Council Decision 93/626/EEC of 25 October 1993 concerning the conclusion of the Convention
on Biological Diversity (OJ L 309, 13.12.1993, p. 1); Regulation 1143/2014 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the
introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 1); Directive
2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a
framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1);
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1141 of 13 July 2016 adopting a list of invasive
alien species of Union concern pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European
Parliament and of the Council C/2016/4295 (OJ L 189, 14.7.2016, pp. 4–8).
196
M. Ventura et al.
introduced species (mainly those introduced from America). However, stocking
several salmonid species is currently allowed and, surprisingly, it is usually sustained or approved by governmental agencies (Miró and Ventura 2013), being in
clear contradiction with conservation legislation.
1 The most ambitious initiative
existent at European scale is the Natura 2000 network, aiming to protect all species
and habitats of special conservation concern (included in the habitats directive).
Member States are committed to guarantee the conservation of Natura 2000 habitats
and species which, for the case of high mountain lakes and some of their species
(e.g. some amphibians, aquatic plants and invertebrates), is incompatible with
allowing fish introductions.
Data from the western USA showed that areas with different angling management practices have a different probability of finding introduced trout in high
mountain lakes, which is lower in National Parks where fishing is prohibited
(Knapp 1996; Wiley 2003). Within the Pyrenees, Miró and Ventura (2013, 2015)
compared the spread of new fish introductions among different areas of the
Aigüestortes i Estany de Sant Maurici National Park and found that in the area
where fishing has been forbidden since 1988, the number of lakes with fish stopped
increasing just at the time of the prohibition, while at the other areas, it continued to
increase (Fig. 8.7). These common findings in several mountain areas over the
world illustrate that the only management practice that has had a positive effect up
to present in the protection of lakes is the prohibition of fishing.
Although the most obvious route to avoid introductions would be for governmental agencies to stop stocking trout, this is complicated by the fact that there have
been several other agents involved in these introductions in addition to governmental agencies through the history of trout introductions (e.g. local citizens in the
past or local fishermen’s societies in the past decades). As a result, Miró and
Ventura (2013, 2015) found some lakes that have been stocked recently without the
collaboration of the administration.
In this context, protected areas sometimes provide the favourable local context
(i.e. the presence of a surveillance personnel) which is essential to enforce the
protection measures (fishing ban, stocking halt) and restoration projects (fish
eradications). Therefore, a new and general attitude of mountain protected areas
towards less permissive policies concerning fish management is the first and most
urgent measure to stem the ecological consequences of the fish invasion.
1
Council Decision 93/626/EEC of 25 October 1993 concerning the conclusion of the Convention
on Biological Diversity (OJ L 309, 13.12.1993, p. 1); Regulation 1143/2014 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the
introduction and spread of invasive alien species (OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 1); Directive
2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a
framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1);
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1141 of 13 July 2016 adopting a list of invasive
alien species of Union concern pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European
Parliament and of the Council C/2016/4295 (OJ L 189, 14.7.2016, pp. 4–8).
196
M. Ventura et al.