Invasive Aquatics
Sunday, April 17, 2011
The spread of harmful aquatic organisms, both to and from fisheries, is something we need to be continually aware of. Click here to view some recent advice (opens pdf file in new window).
Invasive shrimp
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Dikerogammarus villosus, a small crustacean (up to 30mm in length) with a big name and the potential to pose a big problem. Click here for more information (opens pdf file in new window).
A new England & Wales Fisheries Group.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
The newish Coalition Government has announced it will abolish the Regional Fisheries, Ecology & Recreation Advisory Committees (RFERACs) from the end of March 2011.
These are the main vehicles for fishery owners and anglers as well as those with a stake in aquatic ecology and watery recreation to communicate with, grumble about or try to get things done better by, the agency that has responsibility for such matters, vis the Environment Agency.
The committees have existed for many years (as a young lad I was a Fishery Officer quaking in my boots in front of one of these august bodies) and are enshrined in law.
The Government are introducing a Public Bodies Reform Bill to wield the axe, but as usual things are not all running smoothly through the Lords so the Act is unlikely to become law until 2012. This means they are probably acting illegally, but we won’t really know unless someone challenges them via a judicial review.
As Chair of the South West Committee I do regret the news. From an altruistic point of view the committees have done a lot of good, especially back in the days when damage from point source pollution and abstraction was common. They fought hard for the interests of fisheries, admittedly not alone, but together we made a difference. They also helped keep the EA honest about how well it complied with its statutory duty to maintain, improve and develop fisheries and how it used our rod licence income.
Finally, they often helped initiate partnership activity which resulted in some of the best examples of improvements; fish passes, gravel cleaning, fly abundance surveys and the concentration on good habitat. From a selfish point of view it means I could be out of a (part time) job. At the age of 67 this is not so bad, but they have gone and tempted me with an offer of continuing in a reduced role for an extra year. It sounds like the same amount of work for less pay, but enough about me, this article should really be about “what next".
The Agency is in the process of setting up a new England & Wales Fisheries Group. This makes a lot of sense and has been a de-facto position for some time. Nationally the top EA brass meet with Paul Knight, Director of S&TA, Ivor Llewelyn of Atlantic Salmon Trust, Mark Lloyd of Angling Trust, and others representing coarse anglers, specimen anglers and sea anglers, about once or twice a year. They also, of course, meet the 8 Regional and Wales FRERAC Chairmen some 3 or 4 times. Both types of conclaves consider new policy, set licence fees and contribute to strategies to promote better management of fisheries and encourage more people to enjoy angling. Since all this applies across the Countries it makes sense to do it just once and not via 8 different bodies. 
Below this level things are all up for grabs. The Gov says it believes in “Localism”, at least until locals start telling them things it doesn’t want to hear. So we are all trying to help put together ways in which local consultation (sorry we are supposed to call it engagement now) will happen. The key will be to allow smallish groups to pass views up to the top in ways that will be heard, be in a time to be relevant, and which will allow them to be as well informed about issues as RFERAC members currently are. No doubt email or other electronic media will play a role and basing things around either the River Basin Panels or subsidiary catchment panels seems very much the flavour of the month.
These will help with activities to put right factors that have already been identified as likely to cause rivers to fall short of meeting good ecological status and if this is achieved then fisheries will be healthy too.
RFERACs are currently being consulted on both the new England & Wales Group and successor arrangements in the different regions (again this is now a dirty word,we have to say local areas, which I suppose makes sense if we meet in Pubs).
In the South West, at a more local level we have a mix of Fishery Forums and annual Seminars that are hosted by the Agency. The events are well attended and serve useful purposes that contribute to agreed targets in the Corporate Strategy. They are not exclusively fishery groups, but for the future it would be better to expand them further to include others who can contribute to wider Catchment Plan measures. This might include landowners, River Trusts, Wildlife Trusts and Natural England representatives. Not everyone might attend every meeting, but come and go as their interest in the Agenda dictates.
There are existing collections of interests which have their own regular contact with the EA. The largest is the South West Rivers Association and clearly this body which represents hundreds of riparian owners will continue to meet officers. Smaller clubs or associations may have to forego having an officer at every one of their AGMs since the number of fisheries specialists has reduced. Instead they will be encouraged to send a representative to the larger forum. The Angling Trust has set up a freshwater forum in the South West, but it has some way to go before it represents many anglers or is as effective at contributing ideas or actions as the RFERAC. I will support it and hope it succeeds. Biodiversity, beyond that included in River Basin Planning, is already covered by regional and local groups and these should continue where they achieve useful outcomes.
The EA has very minor involvement in recreation, other than angling, in the South West, though the single regional officer has done well helping to co-ordinate multi-agency initiatives such as the setting up of local watersport hubs. I hope that at least this minimal involvement continues in future.
We RFERAC Chairs together with the Environment Protection Advisory Committee (REPAC) Chairs are meeting the Chairman of the EA and Defra bigwigs at the end of January to put forward our Committees’ proposals for the future of “engagement” in our locals (mine’s a pint please). We shall find out how much consultation the Agency is prepared to fund in future and how much it intends to hand over to volunteer groups. Do I hear the words “Big Society.
Chris Klee
Save our Wild Salmon
Saturday, January 22, 2011
A number of serious and worrying issues are affecting our wild salmon stocks. The very recent announcement that the First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond MSP has agreed with a recent Chinese delegation, a deal which may mean the Scottish fish farming industry may have to double its production of salmon to satisfy Chinese demand.
We are aware of the hair-raising amount of chemicals needed to control sea lice and the massive escapes from the cages which has decimated the wild salmon from the West coast of Scotland. One hotel on this coast once employed 20 ghillies and is now down to only two on account of the poor runs of wild fish. It is well known that it takes between3 and 5lbs of oily fish such as anchovies, sardines caught in the Far East and turned into pellets to produce 1lb of salmon growth which is unsustainable.
The Scottish government through the EU have recently arranged a £100,000 grant to assist the netsmen on the East Coast fishery around the Esk at Montrose. This flies in the face of Orri Vigfusson efforts in restraining the Faroese from netting around the salmon feeding grounds. How long before the Faroese start netting?
I believe that Guy Linley-Adams a very able environmental lawyer whom has been appointed by the Salmon and Trout Association to deal with the Scottish Government on this issue will be extremely frustrated. Let’s hope that the Scottish Government see sense and we see a huge improvement to this industry.
I feel that negotiations will take years as little progress has been forthcoming over the last 10 years. It therefore leads me to the conclusion, which I voiced at the recent Branch Officials meeting at Fishmongers Hall, that in the end an interdict will need to be issued on the Scottish Government.
This is a costly exercise and I therefore contend that a fund will need to be set up to fund this future action as the Salmon and Trout Association will not have sufficient funds for this type of case.
Alfred Pope.
Alfie has written to Alex Salmoned MSP on this subject but has yet to receive a reply.
Protecting wild salmon stocks
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
NORWAY ACTS TO PROTECT IT'S WILD SALMON STOCKS. WHY CAN’T SCOTLAND?
Salmon & Trout Association (S&TA) calls on Scottish Government and salmon farming industry to harmonise standards of environmental protection between Norway and Scotland; west Highlands and Islands characterised as “dumping ground” for bad practice in parasite control
Following the introduction by the authorities in Norway of stringent new limits for parasite numbers on their salmon farms, the S&TA, Britain’s leading gamefish conservation charity, is calling on the Scottish Government to apply the same rigorous criteria to salmon farming operations in the west Highlands and Islands.
Reacting to a severe increase in sea lice infestations on farms during the autumn of 2009, the Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries has decreed that this spring numbers of the sea lice in the country’s marine salmon farms must not exceed 0.1 lice per fish (one louse per ten salmon per pen). Part of the rationale for this move is a determination to minimise any “population-reducing effect” on juvenile wild salmonids as they migrate past the coastal salmon farms to the open sea. If the numbers of sea lice are not within the permitted limits, then an order for the mass slaughter of all the farmed salmon in the pen may be issued. The Scottish salmon farming industry’s target for sea lice in the spring is 0.5 lice per fish.
Paul Knight, Chief Executive of S&TA, commented: “Clearly the limit for sea lice set by the Norwegian authorities for this coming spring is an indication that they are taking the sea lice issue very seriously. This is in stark contrast to the situation in the west Highlands and Islands where the salmon farming industry will be allowed to operate with five times as many lice per salmon cage compared to what is permissible in Norway. The salmon farms in both Norway and Scotland are by and large under the same ownership – that of Norwegian conglomerates. This begs the obvious question – why should these Norwegian companies be allowed to operate in Scotland at much lower environmental standards than are required in their home country?”
Mr Knight added: “It is also inequitable that the sea lice limits laid down in Norway are enforceable by law whilst in Scotland the salmon farmers set their own limits under the industry’s Code of Good Practice, a nebulous and toothless document which has no legal status. It is surely time for the Scottish Government to introduce statutory limits for sea lice in salmon cages so that the Norwegian companies operating here are obliged to adhere to similar environmental standards and regulations as are in force across the North Sea.
If we are to have any hope of restoring runs of wild salmon and sea trout in the west Highlands, then a prerequisite is proper regulation of the salmon farming industry including where necessary the sanction of slaughter of the stock in those farms that do not comply”.
Jon Gibb, Clerk to the Lochaber District Salmon Fishery Board with responsibility for wild fish runs in one of the most intensively farmed areas of the west coast, commented: “Leading west Highland fisheries managers have long recognised that the current salmon industry target of 0.5 lice per fish during the spring is far too high to prevent a devastating impact on migrating wild smolts. Our calls for this target to be drastically reduced have been ignored. Now that the Norwegian authorities are implementing a far tougher regime, surely it is time for the Scottish Government to follow suit. If it does not, then increasingly Scotland will be open to the charge that it is the dumping ground for bad practice by the Norwegian companies that operate multi-nationally”.
Issued by Andrew Graham-Stewart on behalf of the Salmon and Trout Association.
For further information, telephone 01863 766767 or mobile no 07812 981531. Alternatively contact Paul Knight, Chief Executive of the Salmon and Trout Association, or Janina Gray, Head of Science, on 0207 283 5838.
Salmon & Trout Association
Fishmongers’ Hall
London Bridge
London EC4R 9EL
Reproduced by kind permission of the Salmon & Trout Association
Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
I am delighted that this new Act gained Royal Assent on 12th November and that it was supported by all political parties, so whichever wins the next election is committed to making the Act work in practice. It will give unique protection to biologically rich and valuable areas of the sea up to 12 miles off our shores and is the first such national legislation that aims to ensure that we stop ruining the huge potential of the sea to give us sustainable “crops” of fish, shell fish, wind power, clean beaches and healthy playgrounds for ever. It will also open up footpath access all around England’s coast. In addition, and not evident in it's title, it has brought in a range of powers to improve regulation of freshwater and migratory fisheries - the first full update for 35 years.
Major benefits are powers for the Environment Agency to limit the numbers of salmon and eels killed by fixed engines-such as putchers or weir-side traps - and to place a limit on elver licences. Up to now the Agency has had no power to refuse a licence to any applicant, and a recent crash in eel populations across Europe means that action is urgently needed to limit the numbers killed. The Act makes it much easier for the Agency to change controls on seine netting for salmon and sea trout in estuaries and the taking (killing or removing) of coarse fish by rod and line. There is currently a 30 day public consultation on proposed new byelaws covering coarse fish removal - my committee has been engaged in this and approves the latest version. They will also be able to offer a greater variety of rod licences than the current two versions - salmon and sea trout or trout and coarse fish.
A further change that is of interest is the proposal to do away with a close season for brown trout on totally enclosed stillwaters. Many of these are now stocked with triploid brownies which cannot breed and, even if fertile fish are stocked, the level of natural reproduction is not significant on a population level. A new byelaw covering this aspect is also open for public consultation and has been approved by the South West advisory committee.
See www.environment-agency.gov.uk for details of the consultations. Choose Fishing then choose Breaking news. The original consultation (ending in Sept 09) is currently being shown but the actual draft byelaws should appear soon.
Chris Klee, Chairman of the South West Regional Fisheries, Ecology & Recreation Advisory Committee to the Environment Agency
Should Beavers be reintroduced to SW Britain?
Monday, December 7, 2009
Several members of our committee went to a lively meeting to hear about the pros and cons of reintroducing European beavers to Britain, specifically to the south west region.
The meeting was organised by the South West branch of the Institute of Fisheries Management (IFM) and held, on 28th November, in East Devon near Ottery St Mary, with a field visit to Escot Park where a family of beavers have been kept on an ornamental lake for the last three years.
We heard that beavers were once present in England and Wales, and possibly Scotland, up to about the 14th century but became scarce, so that by the late 18th century only a few isolated pockets were left. They were wiped out here because of their high value, and on the Continent by the early 20th century there were only three small populations left. Since then people have started to protect and reintroduce them so they are now present in some 29 European countries.
Proponents of schemes to establish them in Britain have conservation motives, partly the desire to restore a once native species and partly because their activities alter watery and bank-side habitats in ways that benefit other wildlife. They create ponds and marshy edges, open up tall tree cover and coppice willows and aspens to create a varied plant community. This benefits many aquatic and emergent invertebrates including dragon flies, helps water voles and several bird species including woodpeckers and kingfishers. It is also claimed their activities decrease sedimentation in streams and rivers and reduce downstream concentrations of nitrates and phosphates.
Opponents’ fears are focused on the dams they build-will they block salmon and sea trout migration, especially on the small tributaries so vital for spawning and fry -and on the impact on trees and other crops such as sugar beet and maize in fields beside rivers. A secondary concern is that beaver dams could increase flooding, either upstream of a dam or, when flows are high, by carrying twigs and branches down to block narrow bridge arches downstream.
The conservationists believe, with some support from European research results, that dams do not pose an insurmountable barrier to salmon. They are weirs rather than total dams and the flow continues over the top to provide the possibility of fish ascending. In Norway, salmon fry have been found in good numbers upstream of multiple dams on an upland stream. They also claim that beavers eat mostly soft water plants in spring and summer – including perhaps problem aliens like Himalayan balsam - and concentrate on willow, aspen and the less favoured alder only in winter. They will not damage valuable timber such as oak, ash or conifers and their coppicing activities results in plenty of re-growth and opens up heavily shaded streams.
The views of people representing the interests of riparian owners in the South West was that no beavers should be released to the wild until thorough trials on a typical salmon catchment have been carried out to determine the impact. The trials should meet strict criteria and be fully funded, including an allowance to cover the costs of totally fencing in the catchment to prevent escapes and a programme to cull out the population should the trial prove the impacts are not acceptable. The proponents must also be prepared to face up to the probable public resistance to wide-scale culling of an appealing animal and the bodies that regulate conservation projects should undertake not to declare beaver a protected species, nor protect their dams, at least for the whole trial period.
In fact, beavers have already been introduced this year to the Knapdale estate in Argyll, owned by the Forestry Commission Scotland. This is a trial release but is unlikely to test the effect on a typical salmon catchment. A number of other trials are proposed but none have yet been approved in the South West.
Chris Klee 7th December 2009.
Blueprint For Water
Monday, December 3, 2007
"In November 2006, a coalition of leading environmental organisations launched the Blueprint for Water, setting out 10 steps to sustainable water by 2015. The Blueprint called on the Government to act immediately to give our water a future. Progress in 2007 has been mixed, but 2008 offers a unique opportunity – and test – for us all to deliver this agenda." Click here for further information and contact details.
3-Year Fisheries Work Plan – Public Survey
Sunday, December 2, 2007
The Environment Agency South West Region are looking at the fisheries work they can afford and why they do it. What do you think are the most important aspects of their work?
If you would like to take part in the survey, click here to download the survey form for you to complete and return to them.
(Please note the file may take a short while to download).
Requires Adobe Reader. Click icon on the left to download if not installed on your computer.
Water Framework Directive
Friday, November 9, 2007
A lot of progress has now been made with this important directive, which will set in place how we deal with water quality and river flows for years to come. It has reached the stage where the main threats have been identified along with the organisations that will have to do something about them.
The Liaison Panel dealing with our branch area is the Severn River Basin one and they consider the most significant issues still needing attention are;
- Flow problems ---- abstraction, over widening of channels, weirs,artificial river regulation, excessive rainwater run-off.
- Alien species ---- threat to wildlife and flooding, Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam, Floating pennywort, mink, signal crayfish, zebra mussels.
- Diffuse pollution ---- nitrates, pesticides, phosphorus, sediment, housing from urban areas and industry, combined sewers, sustainable urban drainage.
- Physical modification ---- for rivers, estuaries and coasts. Eg weirs, flood defences.
- Point source pollution ---- Nitrates, phosphorus, pesticides, sediment,intermittent discharges, pesticides not removed by sewage treatment, gardeners.
The Panel propose additional measures that could be put in place to tackle each threat- so, for example, under diffuse pollution from rural areas they list:
- Extension of catchment sensitive farming initiatives
- Increased enforcement of existing banned pesticides (including sheep dip)
- Improved information on the impact of septic tanks and rural sewerage.
- Regulatory controls on the use of inorganic fertilisers
For each issue they identify the sectors involved, including local authorities, the environment agency, business and industry, farmers, water companies and fishery interests. All will have a contribution to make to solving problems.