Will the new proposed legislation stop fish theft?

[Ken L]

Let's not forget that EA employees are not just there to check for licences and illegal fishing. They are not the servants of anglers alone. Sometimes I think we slag them off a bit too readily as they their name suggests they are responsible for the environment not just the fish in our rivers, canals and stillwaters.

 

Indeed. Around here, the EA spend a great deal of time and money cutting out the fallen trees that offer fish somewhere to shelter from floodwaters, turning natural rivers into glorifies storm drains. They are also keen on cutting down standing trees on the banks of small rivers so that cormerants have better access to the fish when the lakes and canals are frozen.

Other recent projects have included the removal of a 200 year old mill wheel mount from the river Stour in Worcestershire. The weed filled glide above the old mount and the deep hole where it was are now both gone and the oxygenated shallows below them are now entirely silted up. What used to be a fine spot that was filled with trout and chub is now devoid of fish.

 

Of course, "they are responsible for the environment not just the fish in our rivers, canals and stillwaters", but isn't that why everyone (including anglers) pays water rates ?

Is it really so unreasonable to expect something exclusively for anglers from the money raised exclusively from anglers ?

[Vagabond]

recent projects have included the removal of a 200 year old mill wheel mount from the river Stour in Worcestershire. The weed filled glide above the old mount and the deep hole where it was are now both gone and the oxygenated shallows below them are now entirely silted up.

There was a bridge over one of my trout streams where a lorry had just missed the parapet and landed in the stream, From the age of the lorry, and the depth it had subsided, I would guess it happened in the early 1930s

 

Anyway, the slanting side of the lorry made a nice lead-in to a gravelly run, and you could almost guarantee that a breakfast-sized trout would be lurking in the submerged cab. It would come out of the window to seize a passing Mepps No 1 !!! Provided trout were only harvested about once every three weeks, there seemed an inexhaustible supply of pounders from the "lorry pool".

 

Until about 1966, when some meddlesome noodle looked over the bridge and decided to report the "obstruction" There followed tractors, cranes, block and tackle - and now it is just a shallow run about three inches deep.

[Guest bluedun]

Indeed. Around here, the EA spend a great deal of time and money cutting out the fallen trees that offer fish somewhere to shelter from floodwaters, turning natural rivers into glorifies storm drains. They are also keen on cutting down standing trees on the banks of small rivers so that cormerants have better access to the fish when the lakes and canals are frozen.

Come on now, you're painting an unnecessarily downbeat picture there. It's certainly true that the EA who look after flood management can get pretty heavy handed at times - a lack of consultation with their fishery division in some cases. But the fisheries people in the EA are damn good at what they do, dedicated and hard working, and pretty badly paid to boot. I see a lot of the work they do, and for the money we pay in licence fees we do okay.

[Ken L]

Inaction can be as bad as action.

 

Back in the early 80’s it was decided that Bewdley needed a bypass. This was built using the island a little below the town as the support stantion for the new bridge.

This meant that the very popular “gully” pegs on the island were not available for a whole season. These pegs were fast, a little over a meter deep and stuffed with chub and barbel.

 

In order to move plant onto the island, large stones were positioned in the river bed to be driven across.

Having finished the building work, the contractors filled in the ramp that they had made down to the river but neither they nor the EA ever removed the stones.

 

At first there was little change other than a slightly decreased flow but over time, the gully and the run into it have gradually “silted” up with stones from fist size down to gravel and the summer depth has gone from a meter or more down to 30 – 40cm. There are still a few chub but not many and the barbel are gone.

[Ken L]

Come on now, you're painting an unnecessarily downbeat picture there. It's certainly true that the EA who look after flood management can get pretty heavy handed at times - a lack of consultation with their fishery division in some cases. But the fisheries people in the EA are damn good at what they do, dedicated and hard working, and pretty badly paid to boot. I see a lot of the work they do, and for the money we pay in licence fees we do okay.

Strange, all I ever see is vandalism by the EA. Whether it's flood aleviation work, the licencing of poluters (including the instalation of unmanned sewage treatment works), licencing abstractors, authorising the stocking of carp into fisheries on floodplains, introducuing barbel into rivers that shouldn't have them or whatever, everything they seem to do impacts negatively on the riverine system. The latest one is to install piles of ugly boulders along the Severn near Bewdley because their flood defence works cause the river to run deeper and faster and this has eroded the banks away.

Have they done anything to halt the stread of zander ? signal crayfish ? himalayan balsom ? how about Japanese knotweed ? No.

[Guest bluedun]

Ken L

So you want them to be perfect. I'm sure we all would. What do you propose they should be doing to halt the spread of, say, signals? Not much that can be done now they're there. H Balsam? Easy to deal with that - get pulling down by the river. Knotweed? Specialist job for which there are specialists. How about an increase in licence fee or taxes to pay for all these things? Would you stump up?

 

My local area EA have eradicated topmouth gudgeon from a local water, cleaned spawning gravels, investigated sources of pollution, attended fishery consultative meetings (outside working hours), and many other good things. And they've just had their budget cut. The EA guys I know do a pretty good job considering.

[Steve Burke]

I can only speak as I find and agree with the recent comments on this and the by-laws topic. My local fisheries department have been absolutely first rate. The staff have done a lot of work at Wingham, including on one occasion working right up to 10 at night!

 

The wildlife side of the EA now work closely with the drainage department, and long gone are the days of destroying our streams. In fact, they've just done a series of improvements that have created a lot of nice pools on the Little Stour.

 

The EA works on an extremely limited budget and so can't do everything. As for jobs like licence checking I assume they work out what's cost-effective. I don't know if fines go back to the EA rather than central government, but even if they did would the extra revenue cover the cost of the extra staff?

 

The basic problem is that most anglers don't seem willing to pay enough to get a decent service. It's the same with club subscriptions.

 

Granted, there are those who can't afford much, and so one answer may be to reduce the cost of concessionary licenses but increase the full licence.

 

Yet the amount we pay is peanuts compared with the amount we give to the tackle companies. One suggestions has been to put a small levy on the tackle companies and for them to pass this on to us. That way those who can afford more pay more. Whether that's workable in practice has been debated here before.

 

What I wouldn't like to see happen is for the EA's budget to come entirely from cental government. If that were to happen we'd have the fishery budget cut time after time until there's even less to spend than now!

[azrael]

no point in having laws and rules if they are not backed up with enforcement and punishment for offenders

 

I often hear that the ea have limited funds and need to use them wisely but if they have limited funds why waste it removing top mouth Gudgeon from a fishery? it might make the eco warriors happy but most anglers worry about removing the good fish the carps and pike and are not worried about minnows.

 

you will never please everyone but it can look like the ea often worry about the wrong things what they think is important might not be what the average angler thinks is important

[gozzer]

 

 

I often hear that the ea have limited funds and need to use them wisely but if they have limited funds why waste it removing top mouth Gudgeon from a fishery? it might make the eco warriors happy but most anglers worry about removing the good fish the carps and pike and are not worried about minnows.

 

you will never please everyone but it can look like the ea often worry about the wrong things what they think is important might not be what the average angler thinks is important

 

I know I shouldn't reply to this obvious attempt at getting a bite, but, for the benefit of any 'outsiders' looking in. Feel honoured, you have just witnessed, (in the above post), the biggest piece of crap ever posted on here. (Even bigger, just, than a 1metre deep layer of luncheon meat covering a lake bed).

 

John.

[Dick Dastardly]

Removing such an invasive species as Top Mouth Gudgeon is EXACTLY where I want to see the EA spending their limited resources! Potentially FAR more damaging than a few fish taken for bait or even a few big carp taken for the table.