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.