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

[Guest Dave Lumb]

Duncan's links are well worth a look. It clearly shows which nutters are seeking a livebait ban on the waters where vendace exists. It is already prohibited on Bassenthwaite - so why does it need banning on thirteen other lakes?

 

If you have been asked to withdraw your objection to the proposals, please let the EA know that you have no intention of so doing.

 

There is a brief letter to this effect accesible from the news page of the PAC website http://www.pacgb.com

 

Dave

[Guest Chris B]

Dear Dr Diamond,

 

Thankyou for your letter of November 5, 2001. I was disappointed at your response, which was merely a generic standard reply which did not answer any of the points I made in my letter.

 

I therefore have no intention of withdrawing my objection and would request that you reply to the following points, to indicate that you have actually read and considered my views on this matter.

 

1/ The introduction of non-indigenous fish has been happening for at least a century. In fact it is true to say that the damage has already been done. It is also true that acid rain and climate change (global warming) pose a grave - and possibly irreversible - threat to species like the vendace, schelly etc.

 

2/ What proof is there that the ruffe which have appeared in some of the 14 lakes named in your proposals were introduced by pike anglers discarding unwanted livebaits..? Ruffe are one of the least-used livebaits as they are not a widespread species, they do not grow to a large enough size, they are spiky, drab-coloured and inactive.

 

3/ Precisely which species have been recorded as on the increase by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology..? Can you cite a report or scientific study, and can you prove beyond any doubt that anglers illegally translocating livebaits are responsible for this increase..? It beggars belief that anglers would transport enough bait fish to trigger an increase in a species - unless they were bringing them by the tanker load.

 

4/ It is already illegal to transport live fish from one water to another and the EA has powers to prosecute offenders, which it does from time to time. For this reason alone, any additional by-laws are an unneccessary further restriction on lawful anglers. If the EA needs the by-law because it cannot enforce existing legislation, how can it be confident that it will be able to enforce an even more draconian ruling.

 

5/ How can the use of a minnow, alive or dead, not be said to pose a threat to rare species, while a dead roach could..?

 

6/ Do you not agree that the most sensible situation would be for livebait to be made available on site, via an accredited source, as baits are at certain other forward thinking fisheries further south. This not only provides extra income for the fishery, it also completely removes any temptation to transport live fish around.

 

To re-iterate I do not intend to withdraw my objection, because I believe your proposed by-law changes are misguided and a case of slamming the door after the horse has well and truly bolted.

 

Could you please respond to the points above and indicate the timescale of consultation and consideration by DEFRA.

 

Yours faithfully,

[Guest Steve Burke]

Originally posted by Chris B:

If the EA needs the by-law because it cannot enforce existing legislation, how can it be confident that it will be able to enforce an even more draconian ruling.

 

 

I particularly like this point. Nice one, Chris!

[Guest petejones]

I agree with virtually everything said, apart from the disrespectful tone ('donkey')applied to the EA officer. These people are public servants who do not make policy themselves-they are given instructions by elected politicians. Anglers have votes, if enough threaten to cast their votes elsewhere, politicians will listen. The EA staff cannot 'fiddle' the results, if enough people reply, they have to pass it on.

[Guest Chris B]

Sorry - I agree with not lambasting public servants for the sake of it, but this proposal has clearly come from the EA's North-west office.

[Guest Steve Burke]

To make it easy for everyone is there an e-mail address for objections?

 

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

Wingham Fisheries

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

[Guest Duncan]

Dear All,

 

I’ve been on the phone to Mark Diamond, Regional Fisheries Manager at the EA in Warrington.

Mark, who is also a pike angler, is happy to talk to anyone regarding this issue.

He assures me that there is no hidden agenda to ban live baiting and the main thrust of his concerns are the introduction of non-native species of all types.

 

He would like to see counter proposals to these byelaw changes on the proviso that:

 

1.The proposal must be workable.

2. There is no introduction of non-resident species.

 

So there is our chance, we can reverse these potential changes if a solution based on the above can be agreed, all that is needed is a consensus, the doors open lets not slam it shut.

 

His phone No. 01925 653999 & email: mark.diamond@enviroment-agency.gov.org

 

I’m quite happy to give further help if and when its needed.

 

Duncan

[Guest phil hackett]

Originally posted by petejones:

I agree with virtually everything said, apart from the disrespectful tone ('donkey')applied to the EA officer. These people are public servants who do not make policy themselves-they are given instructions by elected politicians. Anglers have votes, if enough threaten to cast their votes elsewhere, politicians will listen. The EA staff cannot 'fiddle' the results, if enough people reply, they have to pass it on.

 

Has one of the EA's lurkers surfaced I wonder?

 

Profile: Manaager - nothing else listed!

 

Read my post! I wrote .... From the Donky's mouth. I could have wrote horse mouth, would you be offended if I'd wrote that? Where I live it's the alliterative phrase for the above reference. It is NOT considered derogatory in anyway.

 

Chris B. is correct, EA Senior Officers conceived this policy in the NW office!

It is not (for one) orchestrated by politicians. And yes I do know that, as I’ve been in contact with DEFRA over the issue.

 

The NW EA are wrong to try and bring in these bylaws and they are reaping the wrath of anglers for it.

We recently went through a National fisheries bylaw review and there was no mention/indication by this office at that time, they had concerns over this issue.

 

I suggest that, that would have been the most appropriate time to raise such concerns. They (NW Office) failed to do that, and are now looking to renege on agreed national polices. That frankly, is totally and unequivocally unacceptable.

[Guest Chris B]

This whole issue was aired in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review and one of its recommendations was that bans like the one proposed should be imposed where necessary to protect rare species.

[Guest phil hackett]

Originally posted by Chris B:

This whole issue was aired in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review and one of its recommendations was that bans like the one proposed should be imposed where necessary to protect rare species.

 

Chris were the rare species not known about at the time of the fisheries review?

 

I think so mate!

Therefore why did the NW office not raise this issue then?

 

Could it be that their Sinor officers do not agree with them on this one?