Has anyone thought about the Salmon

fishy fishy

Just wondering, with all the drilling and work involved in the "new bridge" at Spanish Arch, has anybody thought about the salmon - this is the time that they swim upstream. Their "routine" must surely be affected with this new bridge.

personally I would rather walk the long way around than to upset the salmon swimming upstream.

I am wonder was this taken into consideration or did they just plough on regardless.

Mrs OBumble

Temporary structures don't need planning, so your friends in AT didn't get to object.

So I'd imagine that no, no one has thought about the Salmon.

Sponge Bob

I think the drilling/banging takes place at low water while salmon tend to come up at high water when no drilling is taking place. Could be wrong on both counts of course.

ronnie3585

I am reliably informed that salmon are quite knowledgable, so they should have no problem navigating around a temporary bridge.

GekkePrutser

I'm often thinking about Salmon, especially just before lunch :9

But really, the obstruction seems to be pretty minimal, the pillars seem very small.

Diabhal Beag

ronnie3585 wrote: »

I am reliably informed that salmon are quite knowledgable, so they should have no problem navigating around a temporary bridge.

Did Fionn Mac Cumhaill tell you that?

Zzippy

JustMary wrote: »

Temporary structures don't need planning, so your friends in AT didn't get to object.

So I'd imagine that no, no one has thought about the Salmon.

They don't need planning but drilling like that would be a notifiable action in a Special Area of Conservation, which the River Corrib is. NPWS would have had to be consulted, and evidently had no objections.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I think the drilling/banging takes place at low water while salmon tend to come up at high water when no drilling is taking place. Could be wrong on both counts of course.

Think drilling went on throughout all stages of the tide, but it has had no discernible effect on salmon runs, which are quite good at the moment.

dasium

A salmon that appeared in Bantry in the last few weeks!




Street artist Phlegm ventured into new territory recently completing two big walls in Bantry, West Cork... here is a short video of he's exploits...

http://vimeo.com/44570508

And pic's

http://phlegmcomicnews.blogspot.ie/

BhoscaCapall

Won't someone please think of the salmon!

thesandeman

dasium wrote: »

A salmon that appeared in Bantry in the last few weeks!




Street artist Phlegm ventured into new territory recently completing two big walls in Bantry, West Cork... here is a short video of he's exploits...

http://vimeo.com/44570508

And pic's

http://phlegmcomicnews.blogspot.ie/

Won't someone please think of Joe Boske!

dasium

Joe Boske!? You'll have to enlighten em I'm afraid...

Sponge Bob

dasium wrote: »

Joe Boske!?

Galways Greatest Living Artist!!!

antoobrien

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

Won't someone please think of the salmon!

Fuinseog

I thought they started swimming upstream in September?

galwayrush

What next.. the Galway alliance against disturbing salmon?
GAADS:pac:

Shakti

What if the salmon don't recognise the plaice

ladhrann

JustMary wrote: »

Temporary structures don't need planning, so your friends in AT didn't get to object.

So I'd imagine that no, no one has thought about the Salmon.

Temporary structures do require permission, which would be part of the Event License granted by the City Council. However this would not involve any of the statutory bodies including the Fisheries board being notified as it is not part of the Planning Acts to my knowledge.

Large amounts of earth moving etc. is hardly good for the fish indeed. Another item that has not been considered is the sorting of the dredged material for archaelogical remains, the site where the platform is is where all shiploading/unloading took place until the mid-19th century when the docks were built.

Zzippy

ladhrann wrote: »

Temporary structures do require permission, which would be part of the Event License granted by the City Council. However this would not involve any of the statutory bodies including the Fisheries board being notified as it is not part of the Planning Acts to my knowledge.

Large amounts of earth moving etc. is hardly good for the fish indeed. Another item that has not been considered is the sorting of the dredged material for archaelogical remains, the site where the platform is is where all shiploading/unloading took place until the mid-19th century when the docks were built.

Fisheries weren't consulted but I'm pretty sure NPWS would have been as it is in a SAC. AFAIK there was no dredged material, the job involved fixing pilings into the bedrock which doesnt require dredging, just heavy drilling.
As salmon are running the river in very good numbers at the moment, I don't think the job has had any negative impact on fish...

Stench Blossoms

Speaking of salmon.

Does anyone know of a good place to get Red Salmon ?

snubbleste

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

Speaking of salmon.
Does anyone know of a good place to get Red Salmon ?

In the supermarket.

fishy fishy

had a look at this bridge earlier and I'll tell you , I won't be walking across it - Ill be taking the "long" way around.

Stench Blossoms

snubbleste wrote: »

In the supermarket.

Oh really? where is this supermarket you speak of?

I've tried Tesco Dunnes and Joyces.

:rolleyes:

snubbleste

Tesco sell a number

Fuinseog

what is this really all about? someone will always find something to complain about with the Volvo Ocean. how justified is the salmon argument given that they spawn much later than June?

squonk

Yes, OP, I have thought about the salmon, though usually when I'm at a wedding the beef is more filling. Salmon doesn't quite hit the spot!

ladhrann

Fuinseog wrote: »

what is this really all about? someone will always find something to complain about with the Volvo Ocean. how justified is the salmon argument given that they spawn much later than June?

The point is that scarce resources are being spent on a temporary structure being erected using questionable methods that will yield no longterm benefit to the city.

Such money would have been better off repairing the bridge to the Fisheries Tower.

Re: Statements above on NPW, I would never ever assume that anyone conducting works would ever inform any other body with care for the area. The default setting in all cases is to build/demolish first and see if anyone objects.

And yes there was material removed from the river bed by drilling operations and also by the JCB/earthmover that was placed on the pontoon structure. We may safely assume that it has not been examined and is likely in Carrowbrowne Dump at this stage.

galwayrush

Some people will always moan. :rolleyes:

Sponge Bob

ladhrann wrote: »

The point is that scarce resources are being spent on a temporary structure being erected using questionable methods that will yield no longterm benefit to the city.

Such money would have been better off repairing the bridge to the Fisheries Tower.

How many tourists would we get into the fisheries tower then????

ladhrann

Sponge Bob wrote: »

How many tourists would we get into the fisheries tower then????

Thank you for illustrating my point that everything we do in this country must be done 'for the tourists' and never ourselves.