Fishing in the Gesäuse National Park

The Gesäuse-Enns is described as particularly valuable to unique both from a water morphological and fish-ecological point of view as well as in terms of their flora, spider animals and insect fauna. With the Koppe and the Bach Neunauge, two protected products of the Habitats Directive are representative in the Natura 2000 area, with which Strömer and Huchen have two more (potential) in very low densities at present. The protection and promotion of these protected goods is a priority over all interests of use in accordance with the requirements of the Habitats Directive. On the other hand, the Bach trout, one of the six guiding species in the Gesäuse-Enns, has no legal protection status and is therefore not to be treated as a priority from the point of view of nature protection. The nationally common and also practiced at the Enns with the alien and potentially invasive rainbow trout has not taken place in the Gesäuse-Enns by the casting club. Due to the upstream stocking measures with this alien species, the same are still represented in the national park. Hegefishing carried out or proposed by the casting club and clearing, i.e. a targeted removal of rainbow trout in the course of fly and spinning, to protect the brook trout, are considered to be hardly effective. Effective methods for repressing rainbow trout would be a stop of this kind on the entire Enns (especially upstream of the gum) and the consistent removal of this neozoon in the course of electrofishing. Nor is it possible to monitor fishing by means of fishing, as proposed by the Castingclub Gesäuse, nor is it in line with the current standards for quantitative fish stock recordings in flowing waters (electrical fishing). The fulfilment of the requirements for scientifically sound and partly legally required ecological monitoring is not possible on the part of anglers en passant and rather requires trained specialists who recognise and document small(st) changes in the ecosystem using modern methods. Outside protected areas, ecologically trained anglers often play a valuable control function through their presence in the water, which makes it possible to detect obvious impairments to the water and its living environment at an early stage. There is no need for this in the Gesäuse National Park, as this function is performed in a more extensive and stringent way by trained national park staff. In the aspirations to present sport fishing activities as monitoring and fish ecological regulation, a defence of the self-interest of the casting club must be presumed. The direct and indirect impact of fishing in its current form and the absence of stocking measures on protected fish and nine-eye species is considered low. However, the presence of several sensitive, endangered and protected river and riverbank-related protected assets makes fishing in the Gesäuse National Park or in the Natura 2000 area Ennstaler Alpen/Gesäuse a conflicting form of exploitation. Damage to the (semi)terrestrial fauna and flora and habitats to be protected by fishing is present; in its present form, it has an adverse effect on the autochthonous fauna and flora, among other things, through representation and direct interference of the anglers. These effects of fishing in the Gesäuse National Park are to be assessed as low to moderate and therefore slightly negative. In this context, it is also problematic to see an imitation effect on the part of the national park visitors not authorised to enter the Ennsufer and the resulting emergency of argument by the National Park Administration.