A responce from the EA re. livebaiting in the Lake District

[Guest Duncan]

Phil/Chris,

 

Firstly these actions appear to be driven solely by the UK Biodiversity Plans, that are in part driven by the Rio agreement, which demand that plan implementation is at a local level, and therefore would not appear in national discussions. If you check out one of my previous posts there is a link to the local plan for the Lake District, which indicates this.

The issue would not be raised at a national level when the directive requires local level involvement only. The NW office in this case can only act on local input, and if there is no local angling input into the local plan, there’s the problem.

I will reiterate my previous statement that if we do not become active at a local level then issues of this type will only escalate to the point when we are involved in rearguard actions only, and not where we should be, taking part at the initial level.

 

Duncan

[Guest phil hackett]

Originally posted by Duncan:

Phil/Chris,

 

Firstly these actions appear to be driven solely by the UK Biodiversity Plans, that are in part driven by the Rio agreement, which demand that plan implementation is at a local level, and therefore would not appear in national discussions.

---------------------------------------------With respect Duncan, I must disagree with this statement. Arctic Whitefish as they are collectively known appear on the EU & UK red data book list and as such would have been included in the UK National Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). That means that information would have been sort from the regional offices and regions where they are found. Which in turn brings us back to freshwater fisheries review, and why the NW office didn’t flag this up as a concern then. I would concede however, that at some point it would appear at local level in a local BAP.

 

I would agree with the last part of your post about angling being involved in the process at local level. But here lies the rub, many of the BAPs and Agenda 21 groups are dominated by the militant conservation lobbies who will do their dandiest to keep anglers out of such groups because they despise us. I speak with firsthand knowledge on this. In Manchester, I had to threaten the Agenda 21 co-ordinator back in 96 with an anglers protest outside the Townhall, on the nights of their meetings to get delegates on that group. I also don’t remember the EA shouting from the rooftops that angling groups should be involved.

 

I would also point out that to the best of my knowledge the Agency rarely if ever notify angling clubs and anglers about such initiatives, structures etc. Excuse my cynicism but I wonder why? And there is no hidden agenda here, Yeah Right!!!

 

I also think you should note that I WAS one of the strongest supporters of the NW Region EA team, for the work they have carried out in bring back to life the rivers in Gt. Manchester area. It has however, become increasingly clear to me over the last few years, that whilst angling has benefited from these vast improvements. Angling reasons were not the prime motivators for those improvements, it was conservation to appease the conservation lobby E.g., English Nature, RSPB, Wildlife Trusts etc.

 

The issue that we have been discussing in this thread is just the last in a long list of the Agency’s failures as far as anglers and Angling is concerned. And I for one have lost my faith in the Agency, in regards to supporting anglers interests. It has IMO been hijacked by the Conservation Lobby.

 

I only hope that there are many of the EA lurkers who read this, because I’m sure there are many, many other anglers who feel the way I do about them.

[Guest Dave Lumb]

It does seem that the conservation element of the EA's remit takes priority these days. And this operates to the disadvantage of anglers interests.

 

The only way we can fight our corner is for anglers to get involved. As Phill says, the EA doesn't seek out anglers views, so we'll have to take them to the EA, which is what we are doing on the livebaiting issue.

 

Dave

[Guest Vagabond]

Some very good points made above, particularly by Chris B.

 

So what about Des Taylor in AT today? He reckons the proposed livebaiting ban will serve us pike anglers right!

 

Words fail me (for once), but doubtless one of you will make good the deficiency......

 

------------------

Vagabond

 

[This message has been edited by Vagabond (edited 13 November 2001).]

[Guest Chris Burt]

Quote- “It has IMO (the EA) been hijacked by the Conservation Lobby”.

I am glad to say that in many instances this is not so. Without concerted representation anglers interests can we know not receive the priority they deserve from many areas of Government That is the past however, that is why we have to properly present our views and that in turn is where the NAA is so valuable (see SAA thread on this Forum).

I have had first hand experience of two areas of the EA now. Firstly the Head Office Fisheries Dept, where SAA (and formerly SACG) have dealt with them for 10 years, I have to say I could not look for better cooperation and support. On one occasion Fisheries stood up alongside anglers interests against the conservation lobby, right at a time when we were under considerable pressure, and this support was invaluable. We have also dealt with them over many other issues including byelaw changes, and have had a positive input into many of these. Before though some-one points out about the NW proposed live/dead bait ban, bear in mind that SAA have already slammed the NW Region for their stance, and pointed out (quote from our Press Release);

“We are appalled to see such a rationale advanced as the excuse to ban freshwater dead-baits. The EA’s Fisheries Department Head Office - based at Bristol - considered the risks posed by dead-baits and came to the conclusion that the risk of disease transference was so small that there is no possible case to answer. So we now have the ludicrous prospect of the NW Regional Byelaw on dead-baits being opposed by its own head office!”

So we are not blind to the folly of this mistaken proposal, and would accept at local level NW EA have come out against us. That PAC and all of us are trying to correct.

The other area of the EA I have had dealings with is on Conservation, through the otter predation of carp issue. We already had good support on this from EA Fisheries and now their Conservation arm are also proving very supportive. Whether this leads to the funding for fisheries protection we desperately needs remains to be seen, but they are helping, considerably! English Nature have also gone into print in their own brochures supporting the SAA stance for fisheries protection too.

So, the more NAA/SAA etc involves itself in the various discussion rounds the better it will get. A lot of the contributors here obviously enjoy debate, ever considered adding your talents to SAA? Food for thought anyway….

 

Chris Burt SAA/NAA

[Guest Richard Capper]

At least you can still use dead baits or for that matter fish there at all. They could always close the lakes!

 

Good excuse to start lure fishing I say!

[Guest tony jolley]

Originally posted by Richard Capper:

At least you can still use dead baits or for that matter fish there at all. They could always close the lakes!

 

Good excuse to start lure fishing I say!

 

Richard, I find it hard to beleive that you have made such a statment as this, Are you not aware that not many eels are caught on sea baits, i suppose you are ok with this as you probably dont eel fish any way let alone fish the waters concerned,

The suggested byelaw is intended to take away our right to use coarse fish as bait dead or alive, effectively preventing me from eel fishing these waters to their full potential,

Please remmember and dont loose site of this fact, That not only pike anglers fish with dead fish, there are other anglers that will have their fishing restricted as well.

 

 

------------------

Tony B.T Jolley

[Guest Steve Burke]

Originally posted by tony jolley:

not only pike anglers fish with dead fish, there are other anglers that will have their fishing restricted as well.

 

Perch anglers too as perch very rarely take sea baits.

 

Neither is my favourite method, lure fishing, much good for perch in particular in coloured water.

 

 

------------------

Wingham Fisheries

http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/fisheries/wingham.htm

[Guest Richard Capper]

I can understand your annoyance Tony and Steve. However this is a case I think of the minority spoiling it for the majority. The main problem is that the EA are unable to properly police anything other than a complete ban.

Whilst I sympathise with this putting a spanner in your catch rate as I say I'm sure if the conservationists had their way ther would be no fishing at all.

I think it is better to be philosophical about things like this and spend time trying to think of new methods rather than moaning.

Think of it as a challenge to broaden your horizons and dream up new methods and baits.

[Guest Tim Kelly]

Just because they seem unable to police it is hardly a good reason to be even more draconian! It is like banning all alcohol to stop drink driving. Logical perhaps, but an enormous over reaction. The trouble is, they aren't even sure that pikers livebaits are causing a problem, after all when was the last time you heard of anyone using Ruffe as a livebait? I'm sure they didn't get into the lakes as a result of pike anglers liberating livebaits. The whole proposal is based on almost no evidence and only a vague thought that it may possibly be a bad thing, theoretically, probably, maybe...? Hardly a good reason to stop people using legitamate techniques to catch their fish of choice.

 

Tim