The European Eel - A species under threat

[Sharkbyte]

Thanks Sharkbyte

Chris Daphne, the NAC Environment Officer "sank his teeth into" this (in the nicest possible way, of course)a while ago, with the result that any recreational eel angler can apply for a license, and it will be granted for fishing on a C&R basis. I understand that the minister responsible has also undertaken to change the wording of the instrument to allow recreational C&R angling.

As for your comment "you and your ilk are the challenge facing angling today" then I think you are over reacting a little. This post started out as a plea for anglers not to use eels as bait, and has been seen by the angling anarchist contingent as an attack on their right to fish. More than a little ridiculous, I think!

 

 

Hi Mark

Special licenses for the C+R Eel angler. Wow, result, a few will just love that......they'll probably get them laminated, proudly sporting them pinned to their lapel for their catch photos, and a handful signing off on specialist forums with 'Eel licence holder No. 927305'.

 

As regards my overreacting, I beg to differ. So much so, that I now hang my head in shame because I did not research the new freshwater fish removal bylaws thoroughly some time ago, and use my position on the marine wing of the AT to present a case when it may have counted. You'll probably have a hard time believing this, but I care just as much as you for any species that is genuinely in trouble. FTR, I do believe that something is going wrong with Eel stocks, but by no stretch of the imagination is it anything to do with anglers.

 

Where we differ is in how to approach these problems to best ensure a sensible, workable, and above all else, successful outcome. I make no secret of the fact that I believe the AT, the NAC, and other interested individuals have been sold a right pup. One that IMO will do absolutely nothing for the species, its long term recovery, or the future of this fine pastime.

 

The departments you will be dealing with are more slippery than the species up for discussion.

 

Just take a look at the floppy hat brigade and their well trodden path to Whitehall. When have they ever returned with anything other than bull, false promises, spin and tales of non delivery? How many times have well intentioned campaigns backfired on the recreational angler, and the cause being promoted?

 

I’ve seen it all before, and it’s time to change the record.

 

Tempting as it may be for a conservation rep to deliver positive news to his supporters, cutting corners (eg. knee jerk acceptance of compulsory C+R) will set back genuine progress on restoring this truly remarkable species back to full health.

 

Having now looked at many of the available documents (including the SI), you have just opened the door to what is merely a paper / tick box exercise in EU conservation (is there any other kind?) that will undermine any genuine conservation effort. Your journey is just starting, and much like the Sargasso is to an Eel, it's going to be one hell of a long one, with only an outside chance of ever getting your rocks off at the end of it.

 

Like I said to you in a previous post, if there is a moratorium on commercial Eel fishing in the foreseeable future, I'll eat my mouse. In fact, I will now go as far as to suggest the C+R concession by the recreational fishery will actually go a small way to bolstering the future of the Eel export industry.

 

53. The Environment Agency will close the glass eel and elver fisheries in 2010 if the restocking targets are not reached in that year. The restocking target will be initially based on the catch in 2009, and will be further refined throughout the season following the returns made by the elver stations. In order that the Environment Agency is able to close the fisheries, they will have the necessary powers to withdraw eel licences (during the 2010 fishing season only). A different method will be used in further years; we are looking to use powers introduced through the

Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to authorise eel fisheries; authorisations will only be granted once an assessment of the stock indicates that the fishery is sustainable, and will not cause damage to the aquatic or marine environment. The Environment Agency will be able to attach conditions to an authorisation, and in addition, will be able to repeal it immediately should a reduction in the fishing effort for eels be considered necessary. However, it should be noted that current estimations indicate that the restocking target for 2010 fishing season is likely to be met34, and therefore further measures to curtail fishing effort is unlikely to be unnecessary.

 

 

How sick would that be? UK anglers are criminalised for retaining an Eel, even if only a deep hooked fish that was certain to die, caught in our territorial waters for consumption on home soil, and our rightful shareholding in the species used to support the trade in foreign exports and put our Eels (whether retained or released) on a China mans plate.

 

C+R is for us. We do it amongst ourselves, for ourselves. It is not a tradable asset, and even if it were, the likes of the NAC, NMC or BASS etc. do not have the deeds. We do! It cuts no ice with those that administer the fisheries......other than for their own ends. Sorry, as I have previously informed individuals from BASS, and the NMC, gambling with our culture and heritage for responsible, sustainable and voluntary measures in an effort to benefit our chosen quarry, is totally unacceptable.

 

Just look at the closed season dates to further understand the primary motivators at work.

 

As explained at paragraph 36 it is difficult to assess the financial impact of the

proposed close seasons. However, by placing the closed season at the beginning and end of the natural season it will mean that although the fishers will be constrained to a specific time period, they will still be able to capture at peak times.

 

Key Assumptions/Sensitivities/Risks

Assume the number of fishers obtaining licences remains constant, and that costs of providing eel passes and screens remains constant. The total costs presented of introducing eel passes and screens are at the higher end of the estimation, assuming that there are more complex structures. A potential risk to owners of obstructions is the introduction of unsuitable fish pass, which following an assessment will need to be removed and the correct type installed. Only a proportion of owners/occupiers of abstractions and discharges will be required to screen, following an assessment by the Agency. Should the restocking target not be met in any given year, there is a risk that glass eel/elver fisheries will be closed. Due to the state of the stocks, significant improvements may not be realised for some time and a complete closure of the fisheries may be necessary to ensure that the improvements are robust.A key risk is potential high infraction costs from the EU Commission should these measures not be approved.

 

 

 

The best thing that the AT and the NAC could have done was to steadfastly campaign for the rights of recreational anglers to retain Eels as they see fit, thus forcing the UK agencies into having to report + account for recreational catches. In addition to highlighting the mass under-reporting of commercial Eel catches, said most recently to be in the order of a factor of between 3.4 and 15 times, and challenging the inevitable BS science that will soon appear, you may have had a chance of undermining any chance of the UK Government ever demonstarting a 40% escapement target.

 

Should they not comply, they will face stiff penalties. The mandatory closure of fisheries, following non compliance, would have been the time and place to first target the glass Eel fisheries, then the commercial Silver / Yellow Eel industry, leaving anglers rights intact till the very end, before any potential moratorium. Should you have felt the need, a concerted educational campaign highlighting the Eels life cycle / plight resulting in an extension to the natural and ongoing evolution of angler responsibility towards stocks ,could have increased support for your cause.

 

Although unlikely, you have also just presented DEFRA with the potential to close areas to recreational anglers, most likely relevant to RSA, for the supposed purpose of protecting congregations of silver / yellow Eels. Now, with no allocation, any fish caught, and subsequently proven to be damaged during the course of capture, can be classed as discards.

Discarding of 'significant' quantities of a species under a multi annual plan in any particular area can, and does, result in temporary closure of that fishery. Add into the equation the issue of MCZ’s and things may get very scary indeed.

 

To give you one example, in July / August I fish an inshore mark for a particular species of sea fish. As a consequence of the gear, techniques and baits being fished, we encounter quite a considerable number of migrating silver Eels. To date, we have released any lightly hooked fish and retained only those that come to the boat spewing blood. Often, they have been Eels of a reasonable size, and those retained are put through the smoker to be enjoyed by family and friends.

 

Can you tell me, a conscientious angler, what I should do in future?

 

All said and done, I do not doubt your passion for Eels, specimens or otherwise, and I share in the respect you have for such a remarkable species. Sometimes, however, it pays to think outside of the box when it comes to the politics of fisheries management.

 

It just so happens that a big Eel is on my radar for next season. Just like you guys, I'll probably be spending an inordinate amount of time researching waters, hunting down that giant Eel, and with any luck having my picture taken with a real specimen to be proud of.

Regardless of any new legislation, and should I be fortunate enough, it would always have been sent back to its watery lair.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Sharkbyte

[barry luxton]

I note that none of the protagonists for the demise of taking of fresh eel for consumption by anglers have bothered to respond to your post Sharkebyte. Why is that? Hoping that now the rsa have been tucked up, they will silently go away and forget, while awaiting for the next round of stitch ups.

 

You indeed posed questions that deserve a responce, in particular so the rsa can fire off any last minute objections. It is noted through out the period the rsa was made aware, that there has been no defence, proof offered why catch and release is to continue while the protagonists suggest the eel stocks are very depleted. Certainly, i would like that one put to bed before the 20th unless that little item can be justified, i would have to go further and suggest every one comply with the current greeny thinking of precausionary measures and go for a complete outright ban in fishing for them, i.e. no deep hooked fish dying unnecerssary. Every one counts.

 

One of the major points you made was settling for the unnecerssary ineffective by-laws it has indeed helped with the eu doctrination of bottom up legislation is best, where quite clearly the problem is top down as more than ten years have proved. Not worthy of a responce?

 

The blind are leading the blind. how disrespectful to fellow anglers is that.

 

typo error corrected.

Edited January 13, 2010 by barry luxton

[Steve Coppolo]

I note that none of the protagonists for the demise of taking of fresh eel for consumption by anglers have bothered to respond to your post Sharkebyte. Why is that? Hoping that now the rsa have been tucked up, they will silently go away and forget, while awaiting for the next round of stitch ups.

 

You indeed posed questions that deserve a responce, in particular so the rsa can fire off any last minute objections. It is noted throught the period the rsa was made aware, that there has been no defence, proof offered why catch and release is to continue while the protagonists suggest the eel stocks are very depleted. Certainly, i would like that one put to bed before the 20th unless that little item can be justified, i would have to go further and suggest every one comply with the current greeny thinking of precausionary measures and go for a complete outright ban in fishing for them, i.e. no deep hooked fish dying unnecerssary. Every one counts.

 

One of the major points you made was settling for the unnecerssary ineffective by-laws it has indeed helped with the eu doctrination of bottom up legislation is best, where quite clearly the problem is top down as more than ten years have proved. Not worthy of a responce?

 

The blind are leading the blind. how disrespectful to fellow anglers is that.

 

I think he's been sent to Coventry, Barry. Even Mark Lloyd is ignoring him over on the Angling Trust forum.

[barry luxton]

My second email of objection to defra. i may well get another in before the 20th.

 

Dear Alexander,

 

Further to my objection regarding the ban of removal of the common eel by the method of rod and line angling. I wish to point out, although the E A have done what they can in law to announce the consultation. They have indeed advised who and how they have consulted. The one area who they have failed to have consultation with is the recreational sea angler. They may well consider that they have through the Anglers Trust Organisation, however i would like to point out at no time have the Anglers Trust consulted the recreational sea angler on the proposal to release all eels caught.

 

This proposal was hidden within a fresh water consultation, clearly there is evidence of lack of communication. Please arrange for any decision to restrict be deferred until the E A has spoken to the recreational sea anglers for their opinion of catch and release. The E A have pointed out the rsa will not have a detrimental effect on the stock, any delay will not have an effect on the plight of the eel in any event.

 

Something has gone abundantly wrong with this consultation in relation to communication. Until this has been put right it will be unrealistic and unfair to continue.

 

 

Yours Faithfully Mr Barry Luxton

 

cc E A

 

file

[barry luxton]

Quite concerned that my email of objection will be discounted as no confirmation has been received. As the 20th is now upon us i think it would be prudent for me to put it in writing as a hard copy, and post it.

 

I also note that the organisation that claims to represent all, the A T had stated that they indeed had a hand in drafting the restrictions on the rsa, then informs all after the event, hoping that the rsa wouldn't moan or complain too much with regards to their devious underhand back door actions, no doubt. Leaves me now wondering if they are going to have back door discussions with the likes of defra and co regarding the mcz's, i would be more supprised if they don't. Won't be forgotten for a long time.

 

My third letter of objection will include hammering home the point of the rsa being excluded from the consultation by both the EA and also the AT. The issuing of pointless and worthless bylaws that can't and won't be policed in any event. The the likes of the AT haven't an answer for a deep hooked eel apart from returning them back dead, waste of a resource.

 

I think it would be also prudent for any communication to the ngo's and co to include a sub heading of something like: the AT do not represent me as they do not hold my values of a rsa or consider the rsa to be of importance in their grand scheme of things.

Edited January 18, 2010 by barry luxton