|
Post by highplains on Dec 22, 2006 12:30:51 GMT -1
A posting from this site earlier this year.
A salmon angler and a fishery owner were found guilty this week (Tuesday) at Abergavenny Magistrate's Court of failing to return a Wye salmon to the river. The charge was brought by Environment Agency Wales under National Salmon Byelaw 5 of the Environment Agency Fisheries Byelaws (made under the Water Resources Act 1991) which makes it an offence to fail to return to the river any salmon caught prior to June 16 in any year.
Charles Hopkinson of St Briavels, Gloucestershire and Peter Austin of East Hendred, Oxfordshire were each fined £1,000 and were ordered to pay £750 costs each to the Agency.
The Court heard that on the 8 June 2004 Austin was fishing at Hopkinson’s fishery on the lower Wye at Bigsweir. Austin caught a salmon that was retained by the two men in direct contravention of the byelaw.
Information Received about incident in North Wales.
An angler has been bragging at his good luck at having been let off by the EAW. He claimed to have been caught by a lady bailiff on Llyn Dinas at the top of the Glaslyn, a day or two before the 16th June, when of course we are no allowed to take salmon, The fish a nice fresh springer was caught and killed. The angler has said that he was caught and reported by this lady bailiff, ( well good her) and said that he'd saved himself a fine and had been let off with a warning by the powers that be at the EAWales!!!.
Now this raises a very serious question. We know that earlier this year 0800 reports were being classified as "non agency business". Does this also mean that those apprehended are also being let off to avoid offences being recorded thereby helping to substantiate the EAW management claim that there is no problem?
Can anybody throw any light on this "incident" and do we have any other examples of wrongdoers being caught and let off.
I should also like to know how this was recorded by the EAW?
If this is the case, and I have no reason to doubt it, then things are getting very serious and somebody at the EAW needs bringing to book.
I look forward to hearing your comments.
I will email the results to Andy Schofield at the EAW and ask him to supply some explanation.
Best regards.
Highplains
|
|
|
Post by Hoppy on Dec 27, 2006 7:43:13 GMT -1
Allan, I really cant get my head around this. Whilst the punishment for the Bigswear incident in my opinion was a little harsh, (considering that the fish was recorded in the fishery log books, and i beleive that the fish was given to charity) i accept that something needed to be done. However, if this story is right (and i would like to hear the other side of the story), and can be confirmed - it is disgusting. It raises a a lot of questions for me. 1. Why was the person not prosecuted? 2. What is the EAW policy in respect of prosecutions, is there a cautioning system? Who makes the decision as to prosecutions? 3. How many other offences have been dealt with by way of 'warning' 4. Are these warnings deemed as 'prosecutions' for EAW performance indicators? Or do they count in any way towards performance indicators? 5. How do the EAW record such incidents. 6. How does Mr Hopkinson stand in respect of his prosecution? Interesting! Hoppy
|
|
|
Post by Paul Dunstan on Dec 27, 2006 9:12:26 GMT -1
If this is indeed true, then it's very serious development and if I was one of the 'Bigswear Two' then I'd begin to wonder if I had some claim against the EA for vexacious prosecution on the basis that not putting a dead fish back into the river is a more serious offence than killing a very live one? I think not!
|
|
|
Post by stumpyguy01 on Dec 27, 2006 18:57:17 GMT -1
>:(fish bigsweir myself on day tickets,charles hopkins does everything he can for the preservation of the salmon stocks on the wye,i think that his father was a founder of the wye foundation.i believe that the fish in question was first placed on a stringer line to give it every chance of recovering(use one myself on the severn and teme as its impossible to hold a fish properly for more than a couple of mins with four foot of water on and freezing water temps)nothing worse than fishing in beutiful surroundings only for the tide to come in and push dead fish all the way back up the river day in and day out(fish that have been released at bigsweir and further up the catchment charles has told me to use my stringer if i feel that it would benefit the fish and if i have any trouble with the ea to go up the house and fetch him to deal with them,also pay any fines for me if the fish was found to be dead on the stringer(£2000)not many fishery owners willing to do this. Whilst holding a fish of 14lb in the water to release this season three ea baliffs approached me from behind in a small boat and asked me to lift the fish out and turn around to show them,i told them no and that they should know f...... better.one baliff said that i should let go of the fish if it seemmed ok and that they are hardy fish that can swim forever without gettin tired,do that many of the ballifs actually no much about these fish,also been told that i shouldnt be using a stringer to revive my fish because i am illegally keepin fish and that i should just put it straight back,i think i'll give it all up if it comes to that,dont think i could bare to watch a fish floating belly up,because it couldn't right its self and your not allowed to help in any way......stumpy
|
|
|
Post by Gwyniadun on Dec 30, 2006 10:46:22 GMT -1
Highplains
Following some enquiries on this incredible state of affairs I find that the rumour circulating is 'fact'.
EA management in North Wales have been under suspicion for some time now in their lack of support and understanding of straight forward bailiffing duties. When their 'Enforcement Officers' do their work in the protection of our fisheries....management responsibility lies in supporting them.....they show no support as this case clearly demonstrates.
So, so, we have a continuation of sapless management decisions in anything to do with the protection of fisheries in North Wales our campaign must take another step forward, something must give in the end.
Gwyniadun
|
|
|
Post by highplains on Dec 30, 2006 12:29:34 GMT -1
Gwyniadun
Thanks for that. With the approval of those that have responded to this post I intend to forward copies to Andy Schofield at the EAW and request his response. I can not do this until they return to work after the New Year so there is still time for any other members with comments on this matter to post them.
All the best
Highplains
|
|
|
Post by highplains on Jan 22, 2007 19:15:52 GMT -1
As promised, I attach below the reply from Andy Schofield in response to this matter.
Andy Schofield email starts
Further to your request for additional information regarding an incident in 2006 I have been able to ascertain the following: I can confirm that there was an alleged incident in May 2006 when a salmon was taken during fishing involving two anglers. A case file was submitted for consideration. Following receipt of legal advice, the decision was taken that the available evidence was insufficient to support a prosecution. Warning letters were issued to both men and the fish was seized. The byelaw requiring immediate release of all salmon caught before 16th June was introduced to afford important protection to spring salmon. We are concerned that everyone should comply with regulations such as these and will consider action against anyone detected acting illegally. In the year 2005/2006 we prosecuted 328 Welsh Region Rod & Line Cases for offences relating to freshwater fish, non-migratory trout, trout and salmon. In the same period 5 Formal Cautions and 26 Warning Letters were issued. Regards, Andy
Andy Schofield email ends
All the best for the new year and lets look forward to well protected Welsh rivers.
Regards.
Highplains
|
|
|
Post by DAZ on Jan 22, 2007 19:36:09 GMT -1
As promised, I attach below the reply from Andy Schofield in response to this matter. Andy Schofield email starts I can confirm that there was an alleged incident in May 2006 when a salmon was taken during fishing involving two anglers. A case file was submitted for consideration. Following receipt of legal advice, the decision was taken that the available evidence was insufficient to support a prosecution. Warning letters were issued to both men and the fish was seized. What a bullsh1t reply!!! How much more evidence do they need for a prosecution They caught the person taking the fish before the 16th June (THAT IS ILLEGAL) and even confiscated the fish I can't understand why they could not prosecute. LAZY BAST#RDS DAZ.
|
|
|
Post by Hoppy on Jan 22, 2007 19:40:02 GMT -1
What more proof do people need, caught wet handed!
I would like to know what the problem was with the prosecution!
Still no surprises from the EAW
Hoppy
|
|
|
Post by stumpyguy01 on Jan 22, 2007 19:51:38 GMT -1
:(what a pile of SH1T!should be instant prosecution if its before june the 16th its breaking the law or am i missing something.all that reply does is encourage people to try and take fish before the 16th because it looks like they will more than likely get let off with a warning. an angry stumpy...
|
|
|
Post by Gwyniadun on Jan 23, 2007 19:31:46 GMT -1
It may be prudent at this point to carry the battle into what is turning into the 'Enemy's camp' at Bangor.
There is every likelyhood that the 'Enforcement Officers' in question would like to know that they did not efficiently carry out their duties in this matter. I personally am not for one minute suggesting that they did not, but the reply suggest so, or am I reading it wrong.
Quote: I can confirm that there was an alleged incident in May 2006 when a salmon was taken during fishing involving two anglers. A case file was submitted for consideration. Following receipt of legal advice, the decision was taken that the available evidence was insufficient to support a prosecution. Warning letters were issued to both men and the fish was seized. Quote.
I am taking this matter up with 'Brynle Williams' for the attention of Carwyn at Cardiff.
Gwyniadun
|
|
|
Post by Gwyniadun on Jan 26, 2007 16:35:45 GMT -1
Reply received from WAG today:
Thank you for your most recent letter.
Brynle will forward a copy to Carwyn AM and Mr Chris Mills for their comment, insisting once again that these issues must be addressed.
A copy of their replies will be forwarded to you as soon as they are received.
Regards
Now we wait and see.
I have yet again posed the question as to why there is no dedicated Enforcement Officer on the River Dee, especially the Estuary area in view of a reply in a letter to me dated the 20th February 2006 signed by the then North Wales EA Manager Steve Moore.
Quote: "The post has recently been advertised in the Angling Times and its main duties will be investigating environmental crime in North Wales with focus being on fisheries enforcement mainly on the Dee Estuary, it is hoped to recruit to the post within the next month" Quote:....... wonder what year he was referring to?
Gwyniadun
|
|
|
Post by highplains on Jan 26, 2007 20:33:07 GMT -1
Greetings Gwyniadun,
We really must stop thinking in terms of single enforcement officers, they have to work in pairs to take any action against offenders. A single officer has to call his "partner", who may be miles away and await his/her arrival before he can do anything. A lone enforcement officer would have to stand and watch the river being ravaged, and be able to do nothing until assistance arrived. Health and Safety requires two to attend. You need a minimum of two officers working together. North Wales has three pairs of enforcement officers. We must think of it this way and act/react accordingly.
Hope you don't mind my making the point so strongly!!!!
Regards.
Highplains
|
|
|
Post by Gwyniadun on Jan 26, 2007 21:01:08 GMT -1
Not at all Highplains....but even when we have two working together and enforcing the law...management... decide to take no further action The main point is a broken promise of the replacement of Keith Williams.
|
|
|
Post by kwilliams on Feb 4, 2007 11:44:58 GMT -1
I am led to believe that a replacement has already been appointed to the Special enforcement team establishment in the Northern area in the late summer of 2006.
The Officer's duties on appointment are dedicated specifically to Waste enforcement.
post editted by Hoppy
|
|
|
Post by Gwyniadun on Feb 4, 2007 20:28:54 GMT -1
Hi Keith
Thanks for that information...it needs confirmation and clarification also another point did anyone see the advert in the Angling Times?
Gwyniadyn
|
|