Angling Trust Forum

[Bob Bradford]

Sorry for the delay Gozzer (John) but work got in the way, I have cut and pasted your questions to Mark Lloyd on the Angling Trust forum, please keep an eye out for his response on there, as I may not have the time to cut and paste them on here,

 

Regards Bob.

[gozzer]

Sorry for the delay Gozzer (John) but work got in the way, I have cut and pasted your questions to Mark Lloyd on the Angling Trust forum, please keep an eye out for his response on there, as I may not have the time to cut and paste them on here,

 

Regards Bob.

 

Thanks Bob, no problem. I've only just got back in after a 2 and a half mile slog to the bank and back, I'm knackered, but managed not to fall on my backside.

 

Thanks again, I'll look out for the reply.

 

John.

[barry luxton]

Because of their passion, overall more eels are saved than may be lost.

 

 

Is that your opinion Leon or do you have any evidence to back it up.

 

While we are on about evidence do you know of any regarding christchurch?

 

I love conger eel fishing yet there are some divers out there trying to discredit that, perhaps you can voice your opinion or evidence on that as well.

[gozzer]

Well, I've just looked and Mark Lloyd was quick in answering my questions in post 217. Thanks Bob.

 

For those that are interested, here's his reply from the AT forum.

 

Re: New Draft EA Bye Laws

Mark Lloyd Today at 2:26 pm

 

.Bob,

I agree that the main objective is to stop commercial exploitation of eels, as that has a significant impact. I also agree that the impact of anglers is likely to be completely insignificant. However, it will be much easier to achieve that objective if we anglers agree not to take eels ourselves. I have sympathy for the issue of deep hooked fish, and catch and release rules on salmon before June 16th have led to some unpleasant situations where people have had to return bleeding fish which they know will die. I don't think there is any solution to this without making the rules completely unenforceable (as anyone could say that the fish they have taken home to eat was deeply hooked).

 

I am not aware that the EA has said that taking of fish has not affected stock levels and that they won't be able to police the legislation. These proposed new bye-laws are the result of heavy lobbying by clubs and fisheries who are suffering very real damage to their fish stocks from people legally and illegally taking fish for the pot. The AT will be pushing the EA hard to ensure that they do properly enforce these regulations to protect those fisheries.

 

I hope that helps.

All best,

Mark

 

Unless I'm mistaken the EA have said that the present level of taking coarse fish will not have an adverse effect on stock levels. (I'll have to look it up)

It seems that the AT believe all the "Eastern Europeans are eating all our fish" talk in the papers, and think that new legislation will stop it, when the old ones couldn't. No mention of the imbalance caused by stocking waters with a new species either.

The bit I've highlighted has me puzzled.

 

John.

 

EDIT

 

From the new legislation on the EA site.

 

What is the rationale for these limits on rivers?

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 Within reasonable limits, taking coarse fish is unlikely to impact on overall numbers. But it can affect the make-up of the stock, and have serious impacts on the fisheries they support. In particular, specialist or specimen coarse fishing places particular value on large mature fish. The value of many of our river coarse fisheries centres on the quality of the fishing provided by large fish which may have taken many years to reach such a size.

 

Am I misreading this?

Edited January 11, 2010 by gozzer

[Leon Roskilly]

Is that your opinion Leon or do you have any evidence to back it up.

 

Despite the lack of any rigourous scientific study, I'm confident.

[Sportsman]

So called "expert anglers" may cause minimal damage to the eels they catch.

Not fishing for them at all would cause NO damage to the eels that aren't caught!

 

In Scotland at the moment there is a complete ban on fishing for Eels without a special license, both commercial and recreational.

We are told that Scottish Ministers are unlikely to issue licenses unless it is for scientific research.

 

From the point of view of the eel this would seem to be a very desirable state of affairs.

 

The National Anguilla Club however, are enraged at the idea of fishing for eels being banned and are lobbying all and sundry for the ban to be lifted, at least for them.

 

As I see it, they can still be passionate about Eels, they can still educate the rest of us and promote conservation.

 

They should just stop trying to catch them!

Edited January 11, 2010 by Sportsman

[Leon Roskilly]

As I see it, they can still be passionate about Eels, they can still educate the rest of us and promote conservation.

 

 

But no longer experience being part of the still quietness of the night, nor the sudden electric excitement as a line tightens, the shock of catching a moon-lit glimpse of the fish that they've waited for for many years and the overwhelming fear of losing it now, the comaradie of an eel-in and the bond with others of the same passion, the....................

 

No, it wouldn't work. The eelers would lose their passion, and the eels would lose those passionate friends.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Leon Roskilly

[Worms]

Am I misreading this?

If you are John you are misreading it in the same way thet I am!

 

I've been having a bit of a perusal et the consultation blurb. Some very interesting points are there that haven't to my knowledge been raised on this thread.....yet!

 

So here goes, by the way, all the following quotes were taken from this document http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/stati...ish_removal.pdf

 

Proposed byelaws on coarse fish removal by rod and line – a summary of the response to the public consultation

 

This response is from the Salmon and Trout association with 100,000 club and private members! The Patron of the S&TA is HRH The Prince of Wales, with The Duke of Northumberland as the President.

 

Coarse fish

2a. Do you agree that coarse fish (including grayling) caught by rod and line from unenclosed waters (mainly rivers, streams, drains) must be returned?

No

2b. Please explain your answer.

In our view it is important to ensure that the same principles underlie all fisheries byelaws. The main purpose of fisheries legislation should be to conserve fish and their environment. However, legislation is also justified when it helps maintain the economic value of salmon and freshwater fisheries.

We are unaware of any conservation reason for banning the removal of all coarse fish taken by rod and line at the current time, and we could not support a measure which made it illegal to kill any coarse fish, including grayling, and so led to the situation whereby the only fish that could legally be taken by rod and line and killed were trout and salmon.

Where there are valid fisheries management reasons for controlling the removal of coarse fish in rivers and open waters, particularly large, more valuable fish, we are not opposed to a byelaw for this purpose. This could, for example, set maximum size limits, and possibly bag limits, for fish that may be removed. However, in waters managed primarily as

trout and salmon fisheries there may be good management reasons for removing pike and other predators taken on rod and line, and this should be permitted. We recognise that the removal of large coarse fish in some regions of the UK is exerting pressure of the health of the stock and depressing the economic worth of coarse fisheries in these areas, and that it is suggested this removal is correlated with the arrival of immigrants from the East of Europe and Asia. This issue does need addressing, but we feel this could be achieved through current legislation and the Theft Act, if resources are made available for better enforcement.

Given food shortages and financial dynamics the coarse fish food industry may well continue to grow in the UK. We therefore feel it is important that future management of stocks are planned, which will require sufficient resources to collect monitoring data.

 

The Atlantic Salmon Trust, a charity so it has no 'members'

 

Our principal interest in this byelaw is in its implications for the conservation of trout and salmon. In our view it is important to ensure that the same principles underlie all fisheries byelaws. The main purpose of fisheries legislation should be to conserve fish and their environment. However, legislation is also justified when it helps maintain the economic value of salmon and freshwater fisheries.

We agree that any byelaw should only apply to unenclosed waters, for the reasons given in the consultation document.

It is clear that there is no conservation reason for banning the removal of all coarse fish taken by rod and line from unenclosed waters, and we do not agree that all such fish should be returned. We could not support a measure which made it illegal to kill any coarse fish, including grayling, and so led to the situation whereby the only fish that could legally be taken by rod and line and killed were trout and salmon. We do not believe that such a measure could be justified in law.

 

We support in principle a requirement to remove non-native fish where these pose a risk to native fish stocks and the aquatic environment.

There are strong conservation arguments for requiring the return of all eels caught by rod and line, and we support this proposal.

We can agree to the proposal that all shad caught in freshwater should be returned, but we have reservations about extending this ban to estuaries and coastal waters, given the potential resource implications and the fact that the Agency's fisheries duty does not extend to shad.

 

Institute of Fisheries Management,

 

The Institute wishes to endorse the views of the Salmon and Trout Association, with which we worked on their reply. The sole exception to this is that the Institute does not consider it necessary to ban removal of eels form freshwater as these probably represent a very small percentage of the population present.

 

British Waterways,

Do you agree that fish removal byelaws should only apply to unenclosed waters (mainly rivers, streams, and drains)?

Yes

 

 

Natural England,

 

Natural England opposes the removal of coarse fish species whose conservation status is a cause for concern (for example, BAP species). In addition, new regulations arising from this consultation should not conflict with existing legislation (for example, the Wildlife and Countryside Act) that prohibits the taking of some fish species. Natural England also opposes the return of non-native fish species to unenclosed (open) waters.

3.0

Detailed comments

Natural England’s comments on specific questions:

1a. Do you agree that fish removal byelaws should only apply to unenclosed waters (mainly rivers, streams, and drains)?

Natural England believes that the removal byelaws should apply to any coarse fish species whose conservation status is a cause for concern (for example, BAP coarse fish species) wherever they are caught i.e. on both enclosed and unenclosed (open) waters. A requirement to return these fish will further the conservation of these species and help raise awareness of fish conservation within the angling community.

Removal bylaws arising from this consultation should not conflict with existing legislation (for example, the Wildlife and Countryside Act) that prohibits the taking of some fish species.

2a. Do you agree that coarse fish (including grayling) caught by rod and line from unenclosed waters (mainly rivers, streams, drains) must be returned?

Natural England does not have a view on the return of coarse fish beyond our responses to questions 1a and 3a.

3a. Do you agree that non-native fish caught by rod and line from unenclosed waters must not be returned?

Natural England agrees that non-native fish caught by rod and line from unenclosed waters must not be returned.

Natural England believes that the conservation or restoration of characteristic and sustainable communities of native fish in naturally-functioning rivers and stillwaters should be an integral aim of freshwater fishery management. The eradication of non-native fish species from these waters is an important part of this process and should include the removal of non-natives caught by recreational anglers.

Special consideration (e.g. exemption from the new regulations) should not be given to non-native species such as zander. Attempting to make a distinction between different non-native fish species is likely to confuse the issue and may hinder work being carried out to eradicate these and other freshwater non-native species. Although some non-native fish species might not currently be considered ‘invasive’ (i.e. their impacts appear to be low or negligible) their longer-term impact on the ecology of our freshwaters may be more serious, especially against a background of climate change.

4a. Do you agree that all eels caught by rod and line from any waters (including estuaries and coastal waters) must be returned?

Natural England believes that the exploitation of eel stocks should only be allowed to continue in an eel fishery if the fishery can be shown to be sustainable. It is unreasonable to make a distinction between eels caught by rod and line and those caught by licensed nets, traps etc. If an eel fishery is unsustainable the exploitation of eels (by any means) should cease, or be reduced to an appropriate level, to allow stocks to recover.

5a. Do you agree that all shad caught by rod and line from any waters (including estuaries and coastal waters) must be returned?

Natural England agrees that any shad (i.e. individuals of both Alosa species) should be returned if caught by rod and line from any waters. The Allis shad (Alosa alosa) and Twaite shad (Alosa fallax) are both BAP species but currently receive different levels of protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Given the similarity between the two species, applying the new regulation to both will help

avoid the need to make a distinction between them and help increase awareness of their protected status amongst the angling community.

 

The Angling Trust,

Whether all coarse fish taken by angling should be returned alive to the water is an emotive issue for anglers. Many will demand that all fish be returned regardless of size or specie. Some will fear that mandatory catch and release will increase the danger to the sport of angling from the animal rights movement. Some will feel, as anglers, that they have the right to remove some fish for the table as their forefathers did before them. The membership of Angling Trust is equally split in its view of the mandatory return of all fish caught, but research shows the majority will favour mandatory catch and release.

 

So, my interpretation is that the S&TA, the Atlantic Salmon Trust and the Institute of Fisheries Management were against the legislation. The S&TA alone has 100,000 members!

 

British Waterways were for it.

 

Natural England couldn't really see the point as long as protected and/or BAP species weren't affected.

 

Angling Trust members were split either way but the AT backed it anyway based on research results. What research?, where from? Shouldn't they have used their members' views as "research"

 

It might be an interesting line of questioning on the AT forum as opinions were apparently split. I wonder who had the final say?

 

Whitewash has developed a funny smell these days

 

By the way, I haven't cherrypicked I have quoted what I think are the relevant points from all of the respondent groups listed.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Worms

[barry luxton]

So called "expert anglers" may cause minimal damage to the eels they catch.

Not fishing for them at all would cause NO damage to the eels that aren't caught!

 

In Scotland at the moment there is a complete ban on fishing for Eels without a special license, both commercial and recreational.

We are told that Scottish Ministers are unlikely to issue licenses unless it is for scientific research.

 

From the point of view of the eel this would seem to be a very desirable state of affairs.

 

The National Anguilla Club however, are enraged at the idea of fishing for eels being banned and are lobbying all and sundry for the ban to be lifted, at least for them.

 

They should just stop trying to catch them!

 

 

What a good idea,

 

Might just be able to salvage something out of this unbalanced mess and complain to the EA before the 20th that there aught to be the same rule for the uk as in Scotland.

 

Something akin to you scratch my back i'll scratch yours, vice, versa.

 

Let us know who they are lobbying and the rsa can do the same.

[Dick Dastardly]

So how are these "expert eel anglers" going to be decided then?.............................