New Coarse Fishing Byelaws Coming Into Force

[Steve Coppolo]

Looking back at the A T's involvement regarding this issue. It appears that the A T bosses confirmed that the eel ban was being discussed with the sea committee as confirmed in a post on the A T's web site.

 

Now this was posted on december the 20th. On Jan the 11th, the sea committee had finalised and reported back their desision to go for a ban as confirmed in a posting on that date. The questions i have is did the meeting and much discussion actually take place and if so was it over the christmas holiday period. I am aware that there was resistance in particular due to the fact that eels were now going to be thrown back dead etc. Anyone willing to clarify, or is this going to be a secret from the rsa that leaves yet more questions with regards to the A T's involvement. An issue as important as this needs transparancy, as questions at that time was already being raised with regards to the value of this ban. Well?

 

How many meetings do the sea committee hold over the year? Was it the A T conservation that had these discussions instead?

 

Dec 20th post:

 

There is a debate going on about eels amongst the marine committee Steve and your comments will contribute to that debate.

 

Jan 11th post:

 

Hi Bob,

Sorry for delay, I missed this one. Leon gave me a nudge.

My own view isn't really relevant, but the AT view that has been arrived at, after much discussion on the Marine Committee, is set out in our press release as follows:

 

"Anglers who for centuries have fished for eels to eat - smoked or jellied or baked in a pie - or to use as bait to catch other fish, may soon be stopped from taking them in English and Welsh rivers and lakes or within six miles of the shore.

 

Didn't someone ask the poster of that particular quote whether it was really discussed with the marine committee? I believe they did and that the question went unanswered.

 

No surprises there, then.

[barry luxton]

I'm going to keep on asking the question, so i will send them an email on the off chance that they will aknowledge real rsa even exist. Someone must know.

 

There also follows on yet more questions for example, who devised the ban, brought it to the attention of the E A, as again it is documented that they were aware the take was miniscule. And i'm very interested in the actual make up of this sea committee, to the extent of their knowledge regarding to the amounts that is expected from the seaboard areas that now will be thrown back dead.

 

Haven't heard from the new minister yet, just wondering how full his letter and email trays are.

[Worms]

Haven't heard from the new minister yet, just wondering how full his letter and email trays are.

Don't hold your breath Barry he's got a substantial pile from me alone to answer before he gets to yours

[Worms]

Somebody must have heard you Barry!

 

Here's a reply from Adrian Taylor at the EA (in blue) plus my response to his response (in red)

 

What a shame such a shambles of a byelaw has been passed. No evidence that anglers taking coarse fish for the table is affecting stocks so you ban it!

If you look back at the consultation document and my letter to you (2 Febraury) you will see that our rationale was not stocks, but the socio-economic impacts. In other words the impact on angling enjoyment and value of fisheries. You are well aware that the byelaws do not ban the taking of coarse fish for the table, they restict it.

But you cannot have an angling industry without fish stocks. The whole basis of the survival of a fishery is the stock. No stock no fishery. To ban the taking of coarse fish for the table as you have done unless you fish for pike, again a specialist method that does not generally come under the 'standard' coarse fishing practice of float/ledger fishing. I suppose if I wish to take undersized fish for the table then I could but, as a responsible angler it is these fish that I return to support the long term viability of the 'fisheries' that I use.

 

 

Ignoring Natural England's advice, allowing UK BAP species to be taken as undersize fish yet preventing legitimate retention of edible sized coarse fish! Natural England did not object to the proposed byelaws. Their response to the informal consultation reflected their statutory remit. Specifically, they supported the byelaws where they would protect freshwater fish whose conservation status gives cause for concern; agreed with the initial proposal that non-native fish should not be returned; stated the need to regulate commercial and recreational fishing in eel fisheries which were not sustainable; and agreed with the need to return all rod-caught shad.

 

 

You haven't responded to the point. NE did not support the compulsory return of coarse fish and grayling! As you quite blatantly agree here that "Specifically, they supported the byelaws where they would protect freshwater fish whose conservation status gives cause for concern;" You proceed to include a UK BAP species as one of the undersized fish that we can take! As for eels, well, what a joke, ban anglers from taking the odd fish for the pot but allow commercials to carry on taking them as long as they hand over a share to the Irish so that they can fatten them up and sell them to Europe for food at a vast profit. Hang on, isn't that fish theft of unowned public fish stocks that you are trying to prevent? Or is it just part of the "socio-economic impacts" that the general public (uninformed as ever) isn't told about? ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: whose environment precisely?

 

Not allowed to remove selected non-native fish (the favourite fish of the specialist groups you targeted in the consultation) even if they are damaging SSSI rivers containing salmon and shad! This is incorrect. The byelaws allow the removal of non-native fish (as defined in law) - for example Zander. If you are referring to carp, as I suspect you are, then these are not defined in law as non-native. However, while that is the case, the byelaw does enable us to give permission to remove fish otherwise prohibited by the byelaw. This covers the SSSI scenario that you have raised and was something that we took onboard as a result of the consultation.

 

"Why non-native fish pose a threat to our fish stocks

The introduction of non-native fish species to our waters is not a new phenomenon. As far back as Roman times, fish such as common carp were moved from their native range for food."

The above is from your own website citing common carp as non-native fish. I don't know where you get your "legal" definition of non-native from but the accepted definition by ecologists, JNCC, NE, and anyone else that matters is of a species brought to this country by Man since the last Ice-age. Common carp are not native, established in the wild perhaps but definitely not native. They fit neatly amongst the grey squirrels, fallow deer, zander, pheasants etc.as foreign imports. Your wording in the byelaw is inaccurate. To choose one non-native fish as an exemption makes a mockery of the whole byelaw when fishery "socio-economic impacts" are put before what the ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (the clue is in the title) is in place to protect.

 

Allowing private fisheries to make a choice but banning river users from eating fish that is owned by all. Is that legal? We have not banned river users from eating fish, as pointed out above. The different approach between rivers and stillwaters arises because of fish ownership and is legal. If it was not, then the byelaw could not ahve been confirmed.

 

Can you list the species of native coarse fish of an edible size that we are allowed to eat? I can think of.............. one, Pike under 65cm. OK, technically not a ban but, a fish that a lot of non pike anglers would like to see removed from stocked ponds of non-native fish. Back to the legal side, if nobody owns them how can it be theft?

 

I have no idea how all of this was put together by the Environment Agency that the public pays for without consultation but, I suppose that is the way of the world these days. I explained this to you in my letter of 2 February.

 

Yes, you told me that the consultation was fair. I and just about every other angler I know dispute that. We, the stakeholders that pay for your organisation through taxes and individual rod licence payments were not informed!

 

I honestly hope that fish thieves will be caught by this legislation but I fear only honest anglers after the occasional meal will be the real targets.

 

All my faith (previously significant) in the EA has disappeared. You may even notice that your coffers are £72 lighter as I haven't bothered to renew my licence!

 

Regards, Worms

[Worms]

And from my local MP,

 

02 June 2010

 

 

Dear Worms,

 

Thank you very much for your email of 28 May 2010.

 

With regard to the matters you have raised on fisheries management, enforcement of laws and fish thefts, I will take them up with the Chief Executive of the Environment Agency and will forward to you a copy of the response I receive.

 

Please also be assured of my continued support for shooting and country sports.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Bill Wiggin MP

 

Looks like he needs help on that one then!

[Steve Coppolo]

At least you've had a few replies, Worms. Even if Taylors one is just another load of fudge.

 

I'm yet to hear from the people I wrote to, but will be making an appointment to see my local MP within the next week or two. That way I can shove the evidence under his nose and make it harder for him to ignore what a total cock up this whole thing is - and what a joke those responsible really are.

Edited June 4, 2010 by Steve Coppolo

[Elton]

Piece in The Times on this topic, here:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/mor...icle7145065.ece

[Worms]

From DEFRA:

 

Dear Mr Worms,

 

Thank you for your e-mail of 26 May. As Nigel is currently tied up with other pressing matters he has asked me to respond on his behalf. I’ll answer each of your questions in turn.

 

1. Grayling are included because in law they are “freshwater fish”. Changes in fisheries law made through the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 have presented the first opportunity for effective regulation of removal of freshwater fish. Removal of salmon and trout were already covered by national and local byelaws.

 

2. Carp were introduced into the UK many centuries ago and are now widespread. They have become naturalised and in many waters support valuable fisheries. To treat them differently for the purpose of these byelaws would be inconsistent with wider controls on the spread of non-native fish. However, the new byelaws allow the Environment Agency to give permission to river fishery owners (and anglers fishing their waters) to remove fish by rod and line over and above the limits set out in the byelaws. So, where carp have found their way into a sensitive river (designated SSSI or otherwise) and the Environment Agency has given fishery owners consent to remove them, you would not be committing an offence for doing so.

 

3. The majority of anglers are law-abiding and, once they know about and understand the regulations that are in place, they generally want to comply. The Environment Agency will take action where it detects offences, but will target its enforcement where it will have the greatest deterrent effect. This may mean not responding to every single report of fish being removed, but focusing effort at vulnerable and high value fisheries and where it detects repeat offences. This is a similar approach to other forms of fisheries enforcement.

 

4. We are satisfied that the Environment Agency conducted a thorough consultation before it applied to Ministers to confirm these byelaws. A conservative estimate puts the cost of writing to every licence holder at around £500,000 – this is simply unaffordable each time a new byelaw is proposed. Instead, the Environment Agency told as many anglers as it reasonably could about the informal and statutory consultations. They sent an electronic bulletin to 300 000 on-line licence buyers, they wrote to the various angling representative bodies and they publicised both consultations through the angling press. They also consulted their statutory committees on several occasions.

 

5. Natural England did not object to the proposed byelaws. Their response to the informal consultation reflected their statutory remit. Specifically, they supported the byelaws where they would protect freshwater fish whose conservation status gives cause for concern; agreed with the initial proposal that non-native fish should not be returned; stated the need to regulate commercial and recreational fishing in eel fisheries which were not sustainable; and agreed with the need to return all rod-caught shad.

 

6. The Salmon and Trout Association did not oppose the byelaws. They argued against an outright ban, but where there were valid fisheries management reasons for controlling coarse fish removal, they are not opposed to a byelaw which could set maximum size and possibly bag limits. They also pointed out situations where it may be necessary to remove pike and other predators from game fisheries and that this should be permitted. The Environment Agency responded to this by including a provision to give permission to remove fish over and above that set out in the byelaw.

 

7. We are content that the Environment Agency canvassed as many opinions as it reasonably could have and presented a balanced case for these byelaws. There is no evidence to support your assertion that the overwhelming majority think the byelaws are a bad idea.

 

8. The Environment Agency did not selectively consult stillwater interests and there is no evidence that they are disproportionately represented in the response.

 

9. As with all administrative actions, individuals or groups are free to challenge in court the way that Ministers, Government Departments and other public bodies make decisions through a procedure known as judicial review. Claims for judicial review of secondary legislation can be made to the Administrative Court (part of the High Court).

 

I hope this addresses your points.

 

Regards,

 

Alex Kinninmonth

 

Marine & Freshwater Biodiversity | Defra | Area 2D Nobel House | Smith Square | London | SW1P 3JR

 

My response:

 

Dear Mr. Kinninmonth,

 

Thank you for your reply. There are still a number of irregularities however that I do not understand (neither do the majority of anglers who are still totally oblivious of the new legislation by the way!).

 

If grayling are included because they are freshwater fish, like brown trout, and the EA freely admit that angling has no detrimental effect on stock numbers (1 in 650 fish landed is taken for the pot according to their research) then why put a bag and slot limit on them?

 

The reason for the legislation was, according to the EA to prevent mass fish theft and theft of specimen fish to re-stock private waters. Surely the best way to stop this is to make it illegal to take live fish from a water?

 

Stillwater anglers are now left with the benefits of removing fish for the table should fishery owners desire it (obviously, in some waters the removal of all predatory pike and perch might be used as an incentive to fish the pools, thereby leaving waters with an imbalance of fish species that fishery owners might think would be cheaper as regards stocking (it probably will be in the short term until disease or other problems takes hold and sick fish aren't being removed naturally by predators). You only have to read some of the strange comments in some of the angling press and internet fora to realise that vast numbers of anglers have little idea about the required balance of our natural world where predators are involved!

 

Angling today is a huge commercial venture that is probably 90%+ based on stocked stillwater fisheries. Many anglers go to fish, photograph and release named 'famous' fish. Parking next to the swim and fishing with multiple rod setups is the norm. Any suggestion that somebody/thing has eaten a fish is tantamount to heresy. Antiseptic salves and balms are sold to anglers to smear on the fish after unhooking, camouflaged bivvy (bivouac) slippers and camouflaged toilet roll holders are sold for the keen "angler".

 

Ok, smirk over, but I'm serious! Angling has become a commercial competition. The new legislation protects this commercial side with no thought for those that fish rivers, the minority. Rivers are sustainable fisheries. The EA is in place to monitor water quality, fish stocks, fisheries etc. This legislation has been pushed through with regard to the benefit of the commercial side of angling. No thought has been given to the natural side of the sport/pastime. I can go and catch trout, sea-trout and salmon (with restrictions obviously) but I would be a criminal if I took a 1.5lb perch for my tea (if caught). Has angling snobbery become totally reversed? The revered game fish of yesteryear are fair game but a perfectly edible coarse fish (and better tasting fish than a lot of sea fish in most angler's eyes) that has seen a huge resurgence in numbers and a massive increase in average size over recent years has become a protected species!

 

I read an article in "The Times Online" a few days ago. The writer commented on the new laws and said that the legislation had been brought in to prevent coarse fish being taken to eat by Eastern European immigrants. A view shared by much of the 'red-top' angling press by the way. If this is so and, has been brought in because bailiffs were previously overstretched and incapable of enforcing existing fish theft legislation, licensing offences and existing byelaw infringements etc. what hope is there of enforcing new legislation?

 

Surely allowing stillwater (non natural i.e stocked gravel pits, specially dug ponds etc.) fishery owners to decide their own rules and allowing the few bailiffs to enforce existing legislation on natural waters would see both camps happy. Improved size/bag limits imposed on different water/river/EA authority areas would allow for the difference in fish size/stock/species levels around the country and a sustainable balance of our natural waters would be retained, bailiffs would have fewer waters to police and illegal netting and set-lining (a much bigger problem than a few anglers taking a few fish for the pot if you believe the reports in the media) could be targeted. This, with the previously mentioned ban on removing live fish from a river at the end of a days fishing would reduce mass fish theft and the taking of specimen fish for re-stocking by anglers (if indeed, this happens).

 

Back to the EA notification of anglers. Sorry, it didn't happen. Adrian Taylor of the EA has repeatedly informed me that all online licence applicants were informed of the proposed legislation consultation. I received all of the EA "e-zines" up until the one that would have informed me. A familiar story amongst all of the anglers that I know. I haven't received one since! A minority of specialist angling groups were informed, The Angling Times, a dyed in the wool stillwater carp angling 'paper' was consulted directly, The Angling Trust, the so-called representative body for anglers.......they don't represent any anglers that I know of! Most anglers have never heard of them and the majority of the rest wouldn't pay £20 to join a specialist match angling club, which is what it is. An organisation by the way that supports the Angling Times on the 'management' of otters that are allegedly eating carp from unprotected stocked ponds!

 

The guidelines for EA consultation clearly state that minority interests should be heard. I twould appear that river anglers are a minority that were never consulted. The Natural England consultation saw no reason to support a ban on taking fish as long as no protected fish are affected. Great, apart from one small pike the legislation was passed that allows the removal of undersize fish including a UK BAP species (Smelt). Directly against NE's professional advice! The S&TA did not support the ban either. The S&TA have 100,000 members and have had experience with riverine ecology, particularly fisheries for 100 years! The Angling Times and the Angling Trust (10,000 members at the time of consultation) are seen as mor experienced in fish ecology than NE and the S&TA. I hope I don't have to go to such inexperienced non-professional bodies the next time I need advice or when I apply for a European Protected Species licence in the course of my work. (Note the member numbers for the AT and S&TA,"There is no evidence to support your assertion that the overwhelming majority think the byelaws are a bad idea" No? 10:1 for a start. Then, approximartely 800 individuals and British Waterways supported the legislation on top of the AT. Nobody else did and it still got passed! I have been told that the consultation was fair and that numbers supported a ban by Adrian Taylor of the EA as well. Unfortunately the published results of the consultation tell a completely different story to what you are saying now!

"The Environment Agency did not selectively consult stillwater interests and there is no evidence that they are disproportionately represented in the response."

Yes they did, check the consultees, the responses and the end result!

 

You probably don't have the time but, if you do, reading the internet fora of the AT and AT might give an insight into the general feeling of some of the readers and members of that paper and "angling representative body". You might get a rather nasty shock considering the legislation has been passed after such overwhelming support by such groups. After all, it was only the AT and AT that made the consultation details public to their readers/members, hence the low number of respondents and some of the rather biased views (I read every single one!). Fortunately it got leaked on another internet forum and so a few river anglers got to answer!

 

The consultation was at best, badly advertised and it was certainly not presented to the major stakeholders, the licence payers, it was also not made public. Many non-anglers are equally dismayed at the new legislation. After all, 'what's the point of fishing if you just throw them back? Surely it's just cruel' is a common thought!

 

It has long been recognised that anglers are useful in gauging or at least helping to supply information to the relevant authorities. This enables water quality and fishery health to be monitored due to their presence on the water. The EA is doing itself no favours with this legislation. It is environmentally unsound, it is driving a wedge between anglers. It is driving yet another between anglers and the EA.

 

Get bailiffs on the bank to police ENVIRONMENTAL legislation. don't stick them back in the office under mountains of paperwork trying to prosecute some poor bloke because he's taken a perch or dace home for tea. Challenge the legislation. Somehow this has been passed by Environmental 'professionals' and politicians, after advice from journalists and 'specialist' angling groups that are only interested in pulling out of the water as many of the biggest fish that they can......'mass fish theft and specimen fish'......you see the connection? Ignore Natural England and bodies with decades of experience? I'm really at a loss here. If I were a sceptic I'd think that the giant that is the fishing tackle industry had paid somebody a lot of money to pass this calamity.

 

To sum up what this legislation has done for us:

 

We can take salmonids home to eat (don't forget the parlous state of the Atlantic Salmon!)

We can take a single small predator a day (pike angling is a specialist sport that requires specialist tackle)

We can take 15 undersize fish for the table of any species except eel and shad or salmonids but we can take a UK BAP species.

We cannot take coarse fish that are wild...free, and owned by nobody, to eat that have officially been given total legal protection over and above EU protected species.

 

This will be enforced by?

We have no extra bailiffs to enforce the legislation and how many PCs have you ever seen on a riverbank?and impending cuts for the EA suggest we may have even fewer bailiffs shortly. You say that most anglers are law abiding and want to comply. I agree but, not with stupid legislation that will not stop fish theft but will criminalise anglers who want to take a fish for tea.

 

As long of course that we have the requisite licence and we are following all of the other byelaws regarding number of rods, bait and tackle restrictions, seasonal restrictions etc.that make sense as they are based on environmental management that retains the viability of fish stocks and therefore the fisheries. These are based on trust as you never see a bailiff and commonsense to do the right thing. All legal anglers should know about these as they will surely know their own local rules and regulations. What about the illegal angler/fish thief? he won't know, won't care and, if he did know he wouldn't care. There are no bailiffs on the bank so he'll continue his removal of every specimen fish in the country?

 

Can it possibly be legal to ban somebody from eating a fish that is owned by nobody/everybody. Don't I have Human rights to eat wild food, especially in the country in which I was born? I've eaten fish from rivers and lakes all of my life now it's illegal because somebody is stealing giant carp or whatever from a pond to put in another one.

 

Just before I go I shall also raise the issue of RSAs or Recreational Sea Anglers. Obviously not having a licence these people had no knowledge of the legislation. Being sea anglers thay don't read the EA byelaws on coarse fish. How many of the several million (estimated) RSAs will be prosecuted for bringing home eels for food? I know ignorance of the law is no defence but, how about, an ignorant law is no offence?

 

 

 

Regards, Worms etc.

[barry luxton]

Very, very well done Worms. I can't really help you regarding the freshwater side of the battle because that is not what i do, so i'm sorry i cannot add any weight behind your argument. However you do appear to be getting yours across quite nicely, Good on yer.

 

They also don't want to understand that the rsa were not consulted regarding this legislation. So from my point of veiw i am not going to let them forget that nor the a t for their failing to consult. Makes me want to vom!t.

Edited June 8, 2010 by barry luxton

[Steve Coppolo]

That is a superb response, Worms. Well done, and thank you, for taking the time to put together such a great letter. It is very frustrating knowing that everything you wrote is 100% correct, yet will probably be totally disregarded by the rule makers, who are 100% wrong.