Predator fish kept illegally

[gozzer]

The thing is it will not be the start of a load of convictions, fisheries stock exotics but if the EA thought it was a problem then why allow anyone to stock them with a licence. No situation is going to be 100% contained, so the idea of granting licences is a little absurd and I just suspect it is as much a money making exercise as anything else.

 

So with out knowing the full details, it could be seen as targeting some one who has not coughed up.

 

It's either right or wrong to stock them, licences are just a money making exercise.

 

I rather enjoy fishing for unusual species, but frankly I don't give a damn whether the fishery held a permit or not as I doubt those with licences have much better checks in place to ensure none escape then those with out.

 

I agree it probably won't be the start of a load of convictions, but I can still hope that we are wrong.

I also agree that the EA have been negligent in their remit to safeguard the ecology of our waters.

But it doesn't alter the fact that some less thinking, selfish (so called) anglers, have played a big part in in the insane stocking policies that have escalated over the last 20-30yrs.

We are supposed to care about the waters, and the wildlife that live in and around our waters. Are we not?

How can we complain about any other (accidental) introduction of alien species, when we condone the stocking of anything that swims, just so we can have the experience of catching something 'different'?

Pure hypocrisy.

 

John.

[Worms]

Well from what I see the guy had plenty of warnings and repeatedly broke licence conditions for his own financial gain. His previous convictions for dumping tyres show that the guy doesn't give a toss for the environment so his conviction for this was well founded.

 

From here

Fishery manager Timothy Phillips was today(Thurs) fined £1,650 for illegally keeping live sturgeon in a fishing lake at Thetford.

 

It was the first Environment Agency prosecution under the Import of Live Fish Act (ILFA).

 

King’s Lynn Magistrates’ Court heard that the only place sturgeon should be kept is in an ornamental pond but that there was a financial advantage to keeping sturgeon in the lake as they are attractive to anglers.

 

Phillips was accused of keeping prohibited non-native live fish at Witchlake Fishery, Oakwood Park, Blackdyke Road, Hockwold cum Wilton,Thetford, in Norfolk without a valid licence. He was also ordered to pay £2,000 towards costs.

 

Chris Badger, prosecuting counsel for the Environment Agency told the magistrates that it was recognized that the spread of non-native species such as sturgeon had a ‘far-reaching and undesirable’ effect on animals and plants in rivers and lakes.

 

He said they could introduce new diseases and parasites into water. “Non-native species of flora and fauna are considered to be the second biggest threat to biodiversity worldwide after habitat loss and destruction.”

 

Mr Badger told magistrates that Phillips took over the licence for the site in June 2007. In January 2008 he applied to amend the licence to allow the keeping of sturgeon and change the name of the site to Witchlake from Macs Lake.

 

A time-limited licence was issued in March by CEFAS (Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science) with a condition to remove all sturgeon from the lake by 31 August 2008 but the fish were not removed, he told them.

 

Mr Badger said that Defra wrote to Phillips after an extension was given to March 2009 but still the fish had not been removed. They pointed out that putting sturgeon back into the fishing lake was a criminal offence. His temporary licence was revoked in August 2010.

 

He told the court: “The reason Phillips did not remove the sturgeon from the lake is simply that there is a financial advantage to him in not doing so. Sturgeon are attractive to anglers and he was able to charge a premium in fees as a result.”

 

Environment Agency officers went to the fishery in August and removed by electro-fishing five sturgeon which were given to Phillips to put into an ornamental lake. At least one of the sturgeon showed signs of hook marks showing it had been previously caught.

Phillips admitted to keeping the sturgeon illegally but always insisted that he told anglers not to return them to the fishing lake. However, an off-duty Environment Agency officer who went to the fishery was never given that information and witnessed sturgeon being caught and returned to the lake.

 

Over two days he saw more than 800lb of sturgeon hooked, landed and returned, Mr Badger told the court. None were ever removed to another water.

 

Phillips told investigating officers that he considered that all the fish in the predator lake belonged to the owner of the fishery and he was not responsible for putting them there.

 

The court was told that Phillips had been sent to prison for two months for four previous convictions for environmental offences in 2002 relating to the illegal keeping, treating and deposit of waste tyres without a licence.

 

After the hearing Adrian Saunders, Environment Agency Fisheries Enforcement Campaigns Manager said: "Fishery owners should be aware that if they have non-native fish or are thinking of introducing ILFA species they must apply for an ILFA licence, and comply with any conditions, or face the consequences.

 

“Failure to deal with this now may result in increased costs in the future, as planned legislation will give the Environment Agency improved powers to remove fish and recover its costs, where the owner fails to comply."

 

Environment Agency officer Kye Jerrom added: “If in doubt, fishery owners should get in touch with their local Environment Agency fisheries officer who will help them conform to current legislation, ensure their fishery is legal and ensure that they are not liable to prosecution.

 

“We are making it our priority to safeguard all fisheries and the wider environment from the risks posed by ILFA species and their illegal keeping.”

 

All fisheries must:

 

Ensure ILFA listed species are licensed with CEFAS

That all conditions of that licence are abided by and enforced.

Remove all listed species from that water, when caught, if this is a requirement of the licence.

 

The Environment Agency can help with advice and guidance on:

Form completion

New applications

Screening advice

Fish relocation

 

A guidance leaflet can be found at http://www.defra.gov.uk/aahm/files/Form-ILFA1-Leaflet.pdf

The application for licensing ILFA species at a fishery can be found at http://www.defra.gov.uk/aahm/files/Form-ILFA1.pdf

 

All of the info regarding different licences and species is here , so no excuse for not having the right licence, free, gratis and for nothing! The only money the EA got was so the law breaker helped to pay for his trial...it didn't all come from anglers' licence money. The fine helps to pay for the removal of the illegal fish! The fact that the prosecuting counsel's name was Badger makes it so much sweeter a conviction for me

 

The reasons for not keeping sturgeon? from: here

RESPONSE TO Defra CONSULTATION

 

AMENDMENT TO THE ORDER MADE UNDER THE IMPORT OF LIVE

FISH ACT 1980 (ILFA)

...The European sturgeon Acipenser sturio is a Biodiversity Action Plan species and is supported by a Berne

Convention Action Plan. There is evidence that A. sturio released as a part of species recovery projects in Europe have been entering estuaries in England

and Wales since the 1980s. Substantial new stocking efforts in France may lead to significant numbers of the species in our estuaries and possibly some

rivers in the coming decade. We believe that sturgeon available from the ornamental trade and released into the wild could pose a risk to this recovery

program through hybridisation and the spread of disease. Sturgeon of various species are also being illegally stocked in increasing numbers in fisheries,

increasing the risk of disease being spread. Occasional angler catches of sturgeon from rivers have been reported. We believe that the general licence

for sturgeon species, which enables suppliers to sell without reference to the purchaser’s ILFA licence, contributes to this illegal activity....

 

The constant support for chucking non-native fish in our rivers for 'sport' whilst continually calling for the culling of native predators by our "guardians of the waters" (thanks John!) makes me more than a little bemused sometimes. It'll backfire very badly one day

Edited May 6, 2011 by Worms

[Dales]

But it doesn't alter the fact that some less thinking, selfish (so called) anglers, have played a big part in in the insane stocking policies that have escalated over the last 20-30yrs.

 

Very true, if no one wanted to fish for them they would never get stocked. However I can't criticise to much as I am a "So called, Angler" and do enjoy novelty species. If oddities are available then I will try a bit of "catching" for them, but I do lay as much blame with the EA as with fishery owners and anglers.

 

But what is the point of having heavy restrictions on fisheries when Catfish & Sterlits are available to the public. Years back I bought a couple of channel cats that lived in my pond for a few years before a bitter winter put pay to them. The place I bought them also sold Wells and Bull Head Catfish plus Sturgeon and Sterlits. The Wells kittens were flying out the door, very cheap. From been an angler I knew the Wells could not live in my pond with out munching its way through everything else so left them well alone, but plenty of general customers bought them. How many of these ended up eating the goldfish in there new home and got dumped in to the local canal?

 

When I hear of the odd cat turning up in wild waters, mu initial thoughts are that at least some are releases from pet owners and not escapes from fisheries. Around 20 years ago there was a craze for selling Channels, Wells & Bullhead Catfish well in London, Herts & Essex with almost all garden centres and pet shops offering them in small sizes and cheap prices. I kind of think that tales of big cats in recent years stem from this fad.

 

The current big novelty in my part of the woods is for Sterlets/Sturgeon with everyone selling them. Was tempted to buy a few last summer £15 for a 9" one in a local pet shop. Decided against it in case they out grew my modest pond, changed my mind the next day and they were all gone, the pet shop sold around 100 in a day and in ones and twos to general customers. In 10 years time I expect there to be plenty of rumours of Sturgeon turning up but I doubt the source will be fisheries but the pet trade.

[gozzer]

I agree that all legislation should cover the 'pet trade' as well as 'fishery' owners. I said the EA have failed in their remit.

I think, (I stand to be corrected) that waters under about a quarter of an acre are exempt from needing a section 30.

This again is wrong, the stocking of any alien species should be very closely monitored, regardless of water size.

 

Regardless of who is to blame the most, why aren't the anglers and their representatives, protesting and campaigning about this threat to our native wildlife? Don't bother to answer. It's for selfish, and irresponsible reasons. It seems that the majority don't give a toss about anything other than "it's a fish, innit", "I wanna catch it", or "I can see a nice little earner in this". Sod the knock on effect on anything else.

 

John.

[Worms]

I agree that all legislation should cover the 'pet trade' as well as 'fishery' owners. I said the EA have failed in their remit.

I think, (I stand to be corrected) that waters under about a quarter of an acre are exempt from needing a section 30.

This again is wrong, the stocking of any alien species should be very closely monitored, regardless of water size.

 

Regardless of who is to blame the most, why aren't the anglers and their representatives, protesting and campaigning about this threat to our native wildlife? Don't bother to answer. It's for selfish, and irresponsible reasons. It seems that the majority don't give a toss about anything other than "it's a fish, innit", "I wanna catch it", or "I can see a nice little earner in this". Sod the knock on effect on anything else.

 

John.

Any waterbody that is not the wild or a 'fishery' is exempt from a section 30 licence. No size limits to my knowledge.

 

"• The wild - a water is considered to be ‘the wild’ if

it cannot be guaranteed that all the fish could be

recovered with reasonable ease, or if any viable

life stage of the fish could escape from it into open

watercourses or waters connected to a continuous

body of water. In general, only small, fully enclosed

sites from which fish can easily be recovered can be

regarded as not ‘the wild’."

 

from: here

 

Ooops, just noticed this bit as well!

 

"However, any release (of either native or non-native

fish) to any inland water, other than an authorised

fish farm, will still require Section 30 consent from

the Environment Agency; failure to comply is an

offence."

Edited May 6, 2011 by Worms

[gozzer]

Thanks for that Nick, it's been bookmarked.

 

Reading through it makes my thoughts on the EA failing on their remit even more true. The number of licences that have been issued to waters that are liable to flood, and release fish into the general environment must be massive. Either that, or many of the so called fisheries are operating without a licence.

 

I've heard of four substantiated reports of catfish coming from Yorkshire rivers, and in each case it seems the anglers have returned them. This is what I can't begin to understand. These fish have not come from releasing little Johnnies pet fish, at around 15lb, they have come from flooded commercials. Stocked irresponsibly, with the backing of anglers, and it seems the EA. This is not taking into account the number of carp that are now present in nearly all of our rivers.

 

John.

[ColinW]

I think there will be some seriously worried fishery owners out there. Some of the species on the ILFA list are frankly ridiculous.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/aahm/files/Form-ILFA1-Leaflet.pdf

 

Zander!! Is this 1970? Talk about locking the door after the horse has bolted.

Others that seem to be all over the place are Grass Carp and in particular, Catfish.

[Dales]

What ever the rights and wrongs of stocking species and whether you hold the right paperwork, what is the point in bringing a prosecution? So he was fined £1,650.00, big deal. If it's the place I think it is, they charge £60 for a 12 hour day ticket and £75 for a 24 hour ticket.

 

 

Doubt the chap in question is fazed by this fine, maybe he will remove them and maybe he will not. Can't see anyone turning up to take them. I guess he will dig another pond, sort the paper work out to move them and charge some anglers for the priveledge of catching them for him so he can rehome them and any way one ot two big ones will go un-noticed and when you fish you will be instructed to keep quiet about them.

[gozzer]

What ever the rights and wrongs of stocking species and whether you hold the right paperwork, what is the point in bringing a prosecution? So he was fined £1,650.00, big deal. If it's the place I think it is, they charge £60 for a 12 hour day ticket and £75 for a 24 hour ticket.

 

 

Doubt the chap in question is fazed by this fine, maybe he will remove them and maybe he will not. Can't see anyone turning up to take them. I guess he will dig another pond, sort the paper work out to move them and charge some anglers for the priveledge of catching them for him so he can rehome them and any way one ot two big ones will go un-noticed and when you fish you will be instructed to keep quiet about them.

 

 

The EA should electro fish/net the place, remove and destroy the illegal fish. If anglers cared they would report him if he tried to restock. But then again they wouldn't "cos it's a fish, innit"?

 

John.

[Dales]

The EA should electro fish/net the place, remove and destroy the illegal fish. If anglers cared they would report him if he tried to restock. But then again they wouldn't "cos it's a fish, innit"?

 

John.

 

But they won't and as usual it's just the EA having a little huff and puff but no real bite.

 

And it looks like I was not to far wrong.

 

http://www.witchlakes.com/witch-lakes-news.php