Replies from the EA.

[gozzer]

I assume that we all have got, or will be getting replies to our objections to the proposed legislation regarding C&R of coarse fish. I thought a thread where we can post them, would be a good idea.

 

Here's mine.

 

 

Date: 27 January 2010

Dear Mr Watts,

New fisheries byelaws

Thank you for your e-mail dated 17 January 2010, objecting to our recently advertised byelaw to restrict the removal of coarse fish, eel and shad by rod and line. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the byelaw and to respond to the points you have raised, namely that you question a) the grounds on which the byelaws are proposed, their effectiveness; and c) the adequacy of the consultation process.

a)

Fish removal has featured prominently in angling circles and the angling media in recent years. However, this is not the sole reason we are making this byelaw. We attempted to bring in byelaws to restrict coarse fish removal as long ago as 1997. This was driven then by evidence that specimen chub and barbel were being stolen from rivers or being taken legally, for stocking into stillwaters. This was having a detrimental impact on neighbouring fisheries. While the stocking was illegal, we were powerless to stop the removal of these valuable fish. Unfortunately, we realised that our legal powers did not allow us to protect coarse fish in this way, so the proposed byelaws were shelved. In 2000, an independent review looked at our fisheries legislation and reported to government. Among their many recommendations, were several urging improved powers to protect coarse fish and eels. This report from this review is available at - www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/fisheries/documents/freshwater/salmon.pdf. It has subsequently taken a further 9 years for these legislative changes to be put into law - through the Marine and Coastal Access Bill of 2009. The Bill greatly improved our powers to protect coarse fish and eels.

In the intervening years, there has been an increasing trend (added to the theft of river fish for stocking) of anglers taking large coarse fish to eat. While there is nothing wrong with this in principle, when it involves large valuable fish, it becomes very damaging to fisheries. The angling community, not just specialist groups, and the angling press have been urging us for the past few years to bring in new byelaws to stop this happening. Martin Salter MP, the government spokesman for angling has also urged us to take action. Knowing that new powers were in the pipeline, we carried out a major 3 month public consultation

 

during summer 2009, to gauge support for and help us develop the proposals. I would also add that most of the angling community is behind us, with key stakeholders saying that "we have got the balance right".

You state that the proposed byelaws will not affect the actions of those that take fish illegally. I disagree. For those that remove fish through ignorance of local byelaws and/or the provisions of the Theft Act, these byelaws will introduce consistent and clear rules across England and Wales. This should make it easier for anglers to comply. Those who currently deliberately fish illegally may only be committing offences against the Theft Act, which carries a maximum penalty of £200 fine. Detection and prosecution more often than not relies on the Police, which generally has other priorities. In the future, taking more than the prescribed bag limit from rivers will be a fisheries byelaw offence, which we can prosecute and is punishable by a maximum fine of up to £50,000.

We are not preventing outright anglers from taking fish. Anglers who still wish to take fish for the table can continue to take up to the bag limit for pike and grayling, any non-native species and up to 15 smaller fish (subject to the owner’s permission). On stillwaters, they may take any fish with the permission of the owner.

c)

In terms of who we have listened to during the development of the byelaws, we consulted widely over the course of last year. As you have described in your e-mail, we received feedback from the Salmon & Trout Association, the Atlantic Salmon Trust, the Institute of Fisheries Management and Natural England. Although not all chose to reply, we also consulted the Angling Trust (who we subsequently worked with over the detailed proposals), the Federation of Welsh Anglers, the Professional Coarse Fisheries Association, British Waterways and various other conservation organisations, landowner representative organisations. Additionally, we received responses from several fisheries consultative organisations, various angling clubs and fishery owners and many individual anglers. Importantly, we also consulted our statutory Regional Fisheries, Ecology and Recreation Advisory Committee, initially on the initial concept and aims of the proposals, and again, following the public consultation on the detail.

While we welcome the feedback from Salmon & Trout Association and Atlantic Salmon Trust, as they say, their principal interest is implication for game fish conservation. There are significant differences in the management of game and coarse fisheries. Game fish are relatively fast growing, with most salmon and trout reaching their maximum size after 4 or 5 years. Where game fish bag limits are in place, they aim to optimise the number of adults that can survive to spawn. The majority of coarse fish are slow growing, taking many years to reach the size targeted by most anglers. These are difficult and/or expensive to replace. The coarse fish bag limits aim to limit the removal of such fish to safeguard the fisheries they support.

d)

Turning to the consultation process itself, this has been one of the most widely publicised byelaw consultations we have run. When we opened the consultation on these byelaws last summer, we took the following steps to raise awareness –

-

we consulted our Regional Fisheries, Ecology and Recreation Advisory Committee;

-

we wrote to the principal national angling, fisheries and conservation

stakeholder organisations, including the Angling Trust, the Salmon & Trout Association, British Waterways, etc.

-

we publicised the consultation through the angling media, which covered the issue over several successive weeks;

-

included an article in our summer 2009 e-zine – the electronic magazine we sent to 300 000 on-line licence buyers. You can view this at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homea...ws/108920.aspx;

-

we provided posters that advertised the consultation, to our fisheries teams to circulate to tackle shops and fisheries, and asked them to raise awareness with their local fisheries stakeholders.

We introduced a new on-line consultation process last year, making it easier for people to view and respond to the consultation. By 14 September 2009, we had received 827 responses. A summary of the feedback can be found at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homea...ing/112102.aspx.

Following the informal consultation, we developed our proposals further, making several fundamental changes as a result of the feedback. We advertised the byelaws in December 2009, as we are required to in law. This involved –

-

placing a statutory notice in the London Gazette (see http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/59272/pages/21797);

-

placing banner adverts on the sports pages of the websites of the Times, Telegraph, Mirror, Western Mail and Daily Post, and of several angling websites. Clicking on the banner advert transferred the reader directly to our website, to download the byelaws and details of how to respond;

-

issuing a press release that was published in the angling media;

-

writing to the same principal fisheries stakeholder organisations, as well as national park authorities and water utility companies affected by the changes;

-

e-mailing the 782 people who responded on-line to the informal consultation;

-

again, asking our local teams to raise awareness among local stakeholders.

This has generated over 100 responses (both objections and letters of support).

If this explanation addresses your concerns and you feel you are able reconsider your objection, I would be grateful if you could let me know if you wish to withdraw it. Please could you reply by 10 February 2010, confirming whether you wish your objection to be withdrawn or sustained. If you are unable to reply, I will assume you wish to sustain your objection. If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Adrian Taylor

Fisheries Policy Manager, Environment Agency

fisheries@environment-agency.gov.uk

 

I'm still digesting it, so will not comment at the moment.

 

(Don't ask me where the smilies came from, I didn't put them there, but they do seem appropriate).

 

John.

[Steve Coppolo]

Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West. Almondsbury, Bristol, BS32 4UD Customer services line: 08708 506 506 Email: enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk www.environment-agency.gov.uk

Stephen Copollo

Our ref:

Your ref:

Date: 27 January 2010

Dear Mr Copollo,

New fisheries byelaws

Many thanks for your e-mails dated 30 December 2009 and 19January 2010, objecting to our advertised byelaws that will restrict freshwater fish, eel and shad removal by rod and line. I have already responded to your e-mail of 13 January 2010, which I hope was satisfactory.

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the rationale behind the byelaw in respect of eel and to respond to the specific points you and other respondents have raised.

First of all, however, I would like to clarify the relevant legislation and the relationship between them. The European Eel Regulation is the EU legislation that tells member states to implement the eel recovery plan and what they need to do to do this. You can download the regulation from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri...017:0023:EN:PDF. It is the EU Regulation establishes the need for member states to produce Eel Management Plans and what they may include. Restricting recreational fishing for eel is one option. The Regulation also requires us to report on recreational fishing and catch. The EU Regulation does not provide any powers: these must be found within domestic legislation. Some of these powers are already available, some are being delivered through new byelaws and others through a domestic (England and Wales) statutory instrument. The last of these is what you refer to in your e-mail of 19 January and only provides certain powers in respect of eel and elver net fishing, and improving eel and elver passage. It does not cover recreational (rod and line) fishing – this aspect is the subject of the byelaw you have objected to.

Regarding the specific points raised -

1.

There is no evidence of decline in eels

There has been recent international concern over the status of the Atlantic eel. In 2006, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) advised the European Union that eel stocks were “outside safe biological limits across Europe”. Not dissimilar advice has been given by ICES for at least the last 6 years. In its 2009 assessment, ICES stated the “abundance of the European eel

2

stock (all stages glass eel, yellow eel and silver eel) is at a historical minimum and continues to decline. Recruitment (juvenile survival) is also at a historical low level and continues to decline.” You can read this report in full at: http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/r...009/eel-eur.pdf.

As a result of the 2006 ICES advice, the European Union instigated a recovery plan, to be implemented by Member States. As well as taking measures to improve habitat for eel and to remove obstructions to migration, the plan requires the UK to review its eel and elver fishing regulations. Government is introducing eel and elver net fishing close seasons for England and Wales in 2010. We have reviewed our net fishing regulations and expect to introduce national byelaws to further restrict eel fishing gear design and use later this year. Government is currently reviewing how eel and elver fishing will be permitted and proposes to introduce a new scheme to authorise eel and elver net fishing in 2011

(see http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/...trap/index.htm).

2.

Commercial netting of eels is the problem/cause of decline – which we are not addressing.

The perception that we are doing nothing to regulate the elver and eel net fisheries is incorrect. Through the Eel (England and Wales) Regulations 2009, the Government have introduced close seasons for these fisheries to take effect for this year, plus improving ways of recording the elver catches. We have reviewed our net fishing regulations and intend to introduce new national byelaws to further restrict fishing gear design and use later this year. These measures will place new constraints on the net fisheries, but importantly Government is currently reviewing how eel and elver fisheries are permitted, and propose a new scheme of authorisations. The critical point here is that the new authorisation scheme will enable us to refuse, or even revoke, eel and elver net permits, something that the current system does not allow. That will place us in a position to react quickly to reduce eel and elver fisheries further, or even close them, should the state of stocks worsen. While the current evidence does not show that netting is impacting on eel stocks or has caused the decline, by 2011 we will be in a position to take effective action, if the need arises. If necessary, we will be able to close eel or elver fisheries. We cannot ever have that degree of control over the rod and line fisheries, since we are required to grant a licence to almost everyone who asks for one and pays for it.

I would also draw your attention to the requirements for elver restocking. The elver fishery will be required to make a proportion of elvers available for restocking. This requirement starts at 35% of the elver catch in 2010, rising to 60% in 2013. In fact, all elvers caught in England and Wales during 2009 were used for restocking within Europe. Continued elver fishing therefore has the benefit of providing elvers from areas of abundance for stocking into catchments where eel decline has been greater, potentially making a significant contribution to stock recovery.

3.

No evidence of impact by angling – relatively few eels taken. No reason to remove a basic right.

We have considered very carefully the argument that recreational anglers should be allowed to continue to take eels, or at least a limited number of eels. The basis of this argument is that there is no justification for removing the right of anglers to take eels, and that it is unfair to do this while allowing eel net fishing to continue.

3

There are around 1.2 million anglers licensed to fish for eels in freshwater, plus an unknown number of sea anglers who may catch eels. We estimate that over 500,000 eels are caught by anglers each year. We do not know how many are returned, but assume this to be the majority. Of those that are kept, some are taken for domestic consumption; others are taken by relatively few anglers on a “semi-commercial” basis for sale to fishmongers. The key point is that the impact of angling on eel stocks is unknown, and in view of that we must take a precautionary approach. Our options for regulating eel angling are limited to:

•

Prohibit all eel angling

•

Allow eel angling to continue, but on a catch and release basis

•

Limit the number of eels an angler may remove (bag limit)

Continuation of eel angling on a catch and release basis achieves the right balance. It is preferable to a complete prohibition of eel angling, which in any case would be impossible to enforce.

If we introduce a bag-limit, we will be required under the European Eel Regulation to assess the catch on a regular basis. That will be difficult, probably impossible, given that it appears that sea anglers, who are unregulated, are responsible for the majority of eels taken. Moreover, as we see it, a bag limit of even 1 or two eels per day would send completely the wrong signal to the majority of anglers, suggesting that a take at that level was desirable and sustainable, which it is undoubtedly not.

In summary, the reasons for the decline in eels across Europe are unknown. Climate change, habitat loss, disease and oceanic changes may all play a part. Commercial fishing may also be a factor, although scientific evidence does not show this within England and Wales. That said, we are acting with Government to constrain the eel fishery and also introduce new controls that will enable us to reduce or close the fisheries if necessary. For recreational eel angling, we do not know the catch and therefore we are unable to assess the impact on the stock. Allowing eel angling to continue on a compulsory catch and release basis is the best way to regulate this sector. In conjunction with new constraints on both net and rod fishing for eels, we will be improving eel habitat and access for migration, as identified in the Eel Management Plans, later this year. The introduction of eel catch and release for angling is part of a wider plan to tackle the eel decline on all fronts.

In your e-mail of 19 January, you also question our consultation process. I do not share your view that we have not consulted widely on these byelaws. On the contrary, we engaged more people in the informal byelaw consultation than we have managed on any other. We have also received almost 100 responses to the advertised byelaws (a recent set of national salmon and sea trout byelaws prompted fewer than 20 objections).

When we opened the consultation on these byelaws last summer, we took the following steps to raise awareness –

-

we consulted our Regional Fisheries, Ecology and Recreation Advisory Committee. As I mentioned in my previous e-mail, these comprise experts in various areas of fisheries, conservation or recreation management, including, where appropriate sea fisheries matters;

-

we wrote to the principal national angling, fisheries and conservation stakeholder organisations, including the Angling Trust, the Salmon & Trout Association, British Waterways, etc.

-

we publicised the consultation through the angling media, which covered the

4

issue over several successive weeks;

-

we included an article in our summer 2009 e-zine – the electronic magazine we sent to 300 000 on-line licence buyers. You can view the content of this at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homea...ews/108920.aspx. We know around 20 per cent of these opened the covering e-mail;

-

we provided posters that advertised the consultation, to our fisheries teams to circulate to tackle shops and fisheries, and asked them to raise awareness with their local fisheries stakeholders.

Notifying every angler in England and Wales would be disproportionately expensive. Instead, we consult as many as we reasonably can directly, but use intermediaries, like the Angling Trust to seek a representative view. These are especially important when trying to consult with a sector of the angling community that may be more difficult to reach, for example sea anglers.

We introduced a new on-line consultation process last year, making it easier for people to view and respond to the consultation. By 14 September 2009, we had received 827 responses. A summary of the feedback can be found at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homea...ing/112102.aspx.

Following the informal consultation, we developed our proposals further, making several fundamental changes as a result of the feedback. We advertised the byelaws in December 2009, as we are required to in law. This involved –

-

placing a statutory notice in the London Gazette (see http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/59272/pages/21797);

-

placing banner adverts on the sports pages of the websites of the Times, Telegraph, Mirror, Western Mail and Daily Post, and of several angling websites. Clicking on the banner advert transferred the reader directly to our website, to download the byelaws and details of how to respond;

-

issuing a press release to the angling media;

-

writing to the same principal fisheries stakeholder organisations, as well as national park authorities and water utility companies affected by the changes;

-

e-mailing the 782 people who had responded on-line to the informal consultation;

-

again, asking our local teams to raise awareness among local stakeholders.

This has generated over 100 responses (both objections and letters of support), to which we are currently responding.

I hope this addresses your specific concerns. If it does, and you feel you are able reconsider your objection, I would be grateful if you could let me know if you wish to withdraw it. Please could you reply by 10 February 2010, confirming whether you wish your objection to be withdrawn or sustained. If you are unable to reply, I will assume you wish to sustain your objection.

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Adrian Taylor

 

Fisheries Policy Manager, Environment Agency

fisheries@environment-agency.gov.uk

Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West. Almondsbury, Bristol, BS32 4UD

Customer services line: 08708 506 506

Email: enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk

www.environment-agency.gov.uk

[Steve Coppolo]

"Notifying every angler in England and Wales would be disproportionately expensive. Instead, we consult as many as we reasonably can directly, but use intermediaries, like the Angling Trust to seek a representative view. These are especially important when trying to consult with a sector of the angling community that may be more difficult to reach, for example sea anglers."

 

I'd like to know how many anglers the Angling Trust consulted to get their 'representative view'. I know I wasn't one of them.

 

Needless to say, I won't be reconsidering my objections.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Steve Coppolo

[Elton]

My first reply began, "Dear Mr Copollo," - I kid you not.

[Elton]

"Notifying every angler in England and Wales would be disproportionately expensive. Instead, we consult as many as we reasonably can directly, but use intermediaries, like the Angling Trust to seek a representative view. These are especially important when trying to consult with a sector of the angling community that may be more difficult to reach, for example sea anglers."

 

I'd like to know how many anglers the Angling Trust consulted to get their 'representative view'. I know I wasn't one of them.

 

Needless to say, I won't be reconsidering my objections.

 

My one said this, Steve:

 

"To make sure we gain a representative view use intermediaries, like the Angling Trust to seek a representative view – the Angling Trust represents sea anglers."

[Elton]

If anyone's interested, the HM Government 'Code of Practice on Consultation' can be found here:

 

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file47158.pdf

 

6.2 reads:

 

In order to ensure that responses are analysed correctly, it is important to understand who different bodies represent, and how the response has been pulled together, e.g. whether the views of members of a representative body were sought prior to drafting the response.

[barry luxton]

My one said this, Steve:

 

"To make sure we gain a representative view use intermediaries, like the Angling Trust to seek a representative view – the Angling Trust represents sea anglers."

 

As it happens mine said exactly the same thing. plus

Quote:

The Angling Trust represents sea anglers, as well as coarse and game fishermen – in view of this, the Trust was an important consultee. I can not comment on whether the Trust has consulted individual members (that is a matter for the Trust), but from looking at its website, there are articles and discussion forums covering the byelaws.

end quote.

 

I'm going to reinforce my objections and ask that it remains on record, by replying to their reply. I will make a point again that the A T did not consult the rsa and their 'discussions' appeared to be after they had agreed with the E A regarding the restrictions on the rsa. Going to ask them at what stage they are going to use the precautionary method for elver take etc, when it reaches 3%....2%.....1% Going to ask why they are infact using the precautionary method now on the rsa. I will include 6.2

Edited January 28, 2010 by barry luxton

[Worms]

Well, the next step is the Government!

 

I've just sent a watery eyed letter to my local MP, outlining the issues. At least fore-armed is fore-warned as they say!

 

I feel that the patron of the S&TA is next on my list :notworthy: (he may not be everybodies cup of tea but he certainly knows how to stick his oar in when required!).

 

I still haven't had a reply from the EA!

[barry luxton]

I still haven't had a reply from the EA!

Thats because you are a 'w'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

right down at the bottom of the list.

 

Reading your complaint , they well need to do some joined up writing compared with us ordinary whingers.

[Elton]

I can not comment on whether the Trust has consulted individual members (that is a matter for the Trust)

 

As you've already spotted in 6.2, Barry, it is as much a matter for them as it is for the Trust, so the quote above is twaddle!