Jump to content

Justification


gozzer

Recommended Posts

I cant see the logic in the 5.7 bit. If limits on the number and sizes allowed to be taken is good enough protection for the species that anglers say they most like to take, why do the species that we don't say we like to take need more protection (a total ban on taking)?

The same paragraph also ends by saying this " It is possible that limited removal of other species might be also allowed, and we would welcome views on this." Is there a way of contacting them for this or do we just take pot luck with an email? Or is that not really aimed at anglers?

 

A tiger does not lose sleep over the opinion of sheep

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The same paragraph also ends by saying this " It is possible that limited removal of other species might be also allowed, and we would welcome views on this." Is there a way of contacting them for this or do we just take pot luck with an email? Or is that not really aimed at anglers?

 

This is email addy for the guy to talk to.

 

 

adrian.taylor@Environment-agency.gov.uk

 

I'm awaiting a reply myself.

 

John.

Angling is more than just catching fish, if it wasn't it would just be called 'catching'......... John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry this is so long, but I wanted to pick up on a few of the points in the consultation results:

 

There is no evidence to suggest that the current level of coarse fish removal by anglers is impacting on the conservation of coarse fish species generally.

 

--------------------------------------

 

Without a sound stock conservation argument, mandatory catch and release for all coarse fish could be open to challenge as the removal of a basic right. In view of this, there is no sound basis for a complete ban. At the other extreme unlimited removal is a risk to coarse fisheries. The regulatory regime needs to protect the interests of coarse anglers (the social value) and of clubs and owners (the economic value). Byelaws that allow some limited removal provide a way to achieve this.

 

--------------------------------------

 

In our consultation document we proposed that stillwaters should not be covered by the byelaw because this would conflict with the right of owners to decide if fish may be removed – bearing in mind that they usually own fish in their stillwaters. We also said that a single rule would not be possible for all waters because of this.

 

--------------------------------------

 

Others suggested that if we are not able to include stillwaters in the byelaw, we must do something else to assist fishery owners and clubs enforce Theft Act provisions.

 

--------------------------------------

 

In effect, this sets a zero limit as a default, enforced by us, which we believe many stillwater coarse fishery owners/occupiers will adopt, But it also enables owners/occupiers to “opt out” if they wish to allow fish to be taken; in doing so they must then rely on the Theft Act to deal with rule breakers.

 

--------------------------------------

 

...many wanted to see an exception to allow taking of a limited number of small fish for bait. A minority wanted to be able to take the occasional fish to eat. We propose that limited taking of coarse fish from rivers should be allowed.

 

--------------------------------------

 

Anglers should be allowed to take a limited number of small fish for bait. It is integral to predator fishing, an important element of coarse fishing. It is well established practice with no evidence of adverse impact on fish stocks.

 

--------------------------------------

 

Exceptions put forward were that anglers should be allowed to take a limited number of grayling, primarily based on their good eating. Some also proposed exception for pike, based not only on eating but on the need for predator control in some circumstances. Very little was said in favour of taking other species for the table. This presents a dilemma. What is the rationale for allowing taking of some species, but not others? Also, why prevent taking of coarse fish when salmon and trout can be taken?

 

--------------------------------------

 

We propose that anglers should be allowed to take a limited number of grayling per day, with a minimum size limit to protect juveniles and a maximum limit to protect the largest and most valuable fish. We suggest a similar approach for pike. We will seek further advice from the angling governing bodies and specialist groups in setting these limits. It is possible that limited removal of other species might be also allowed, and we would welcome views on this.

 

--------------------------------------

 

Our suggested solution for rivers is to neither require removal of non-natives nor place any constraints on taking them, allowing flexibility for anglers to take them where they are not wanted. We will tackle this by listing the native species to which the byelaw applies – these will be subject to constraints on removal. Removal of species not listed, i.e. non-native species, would be permitted.

 

--------------------------------------

 

We made it clear that the consultation concerned only the removal of fish and not their subsequent use. However, we received many comments suggesting that the byelaw should specify that live baits should only be used in the water where they are caught. This is already required by an existing national byelaw which will remain in place.

 

--------------------------------------

 

Will we have the resources to enforce the byelaw? This is an important question, even more so if we include stillwaters within the byelaw.

 

--------------------------------------

 

The introduction of nationally consistent rules has value in itself, providing clarity for anglers and fishery owners. Communication of a new byelaw will be a critical part of this, and we will ensure that this accompanies introduction of any new byelaw. But we recognise that we may also need to increase our enforcement activity. Specifically we will need to able to respond to reports of byelaw offences, and carry out investigation and prosecution. We are examining the implications of this byelaw for enforcement and resources that are needed, for both rivers and stillwaters.

 

Can anyone explain to me what will actually change?

 

:headhurt:

 

In fact, depending on the specifics yet to be decided, it could leave it more open for people to take fish than is currently the case. KLAA in Norfolk are always complaining about Eastern Europeans taking fish (pike and zander, mostly) from their fen rivers, and the new byelaw would allow it! Also, it will be interesting if carp ends up on the non-native list, and therefore fair game...

And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry this is so long, but I wanted to pick up on a few of the points in the consultation results:

 

 

 

Can anyone explain to me what will actually change?

 

:headhurt:

 

In fact, depending on the specifics yet to be decided, it could leave it more open for people to take fish than is currently the case. KLAA in Norfolk are always complaining about Eastern Europeans taking fish (pike and zander, mostly) from their fen rivers, and the new byelaw would allow it! Also, it will be interesting if carp ends up on the non-native list, and therefore fair game...

 

 

I'd love to see them try to prosecute anyone saying carp are native!

 

Rich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've thought about posting this for some time now, and I know this will be controversial, and probably won't get many replies but here goes.

 

In the light of the recent proposals for a ban on the taking of coarse fish for the pot. How would you justify the catching of fish?

I don't mean "the guardians of the water" stance, or the "getting away from it all" and "being a part of nature", because these can be done without actually catching fish.

If you had to justify our obsession with catching fish, what would you say?

 

Over to you.

 

John.

 

I was thinking about this during a long drive yesterday, its certaintly a tricky one!

 

I was say I fish for enjoyment. It is indeed a selfish act, however, I feel it is justified by the fact anglers help conserve and highlight ecological issues. If there wasn't human pressure on the fish from us a likely byproduct of that would be other human activities which would could well exert even more pressure on habitat quality and in turn fish in some way or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is email addy for the guy to talk to.

 

 

adrian.taylor@Environment-agency.gov.uk

 

I'm awaiting a reply myself.

 

John.

Thanks John.

 

Maybe its not to late for an email bombardment from anglers concerned over justifying the future of coarse fishing and the removal of a basic right to have an effect on the out come of all this. Well i don't see what harm it can do anyway.

 

A tiger does not lose sleep over the opinion of sheep

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take your point Jeff, but, don't forget, the coarse fishing scene on the Wye as it is now (read barbel) is very much a Johnny-come-lately affair compared with the (still massive) Wye salmon "business" . As for the excellent Wye and Usk foundation, what species do you think all of that barbel and chub money is being thrown back in to help? :thumbs:

 

 

Its right that with Coarse stocks naturally high, that £ is directed into Game fish. Improves fishing for everyone. I also like some of WUF's schemes such as reversing acidification. If I did not live so far away I think I would volunteer in some way.

 

Most of the anglers I meet on the Wye are middle aged course anglers. Barbel angling is obviously relatively recent (compared to the history of salmon angling) but a lot of course anglers have just branched out into it from other forms of fishing available to them as the "barbel" opportunity has come along..and to think, its all as a result of illegal fish movement which is frowned upon by the E.A but who advertise the great barbel fishing on the Wye. Tad ironic...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.