|
Post by Gwyniadun on Apr 4, 2007 6:19:23 GMT -1
Wow, big deal, we'll put it on the internet, that will sort it out!
Easter holiday warning for poachers publication date: Apr 3, 2007 Previous | The Environment Agency (EA) has issued a warning to criminal fishermen that officers will be patrolling Britain's lakes and rivers throughout the Easter bank holiday weekend.
Specialist high impact fisheries enforcement (HIFE) officers will be working overtime while the rest of Britain relaxes in order to keep poachers from illegally fishing in protected areas.
Matt Carter, the EA's strategic specialist for fisheries, said that the HIFE officers "are trained to a high standard, specifically to deal with illegal fishing" and "will help better protect the fish in our rivers and lakes, which will ultimately improve angling for all".
Officers have the same powers as policemen when enforcing fisheries law and to aid them in their surveillance and prosecution tasks have been issued with new equipment, including protective vests.
Rod licence-evaders and fishermen using illegal techniques will be targeted in the four-day operation which covers the River Wandle, the River Lea Navigation, the Lower Mole, the Tideway and Lower Thames and along London Docks.
Gwyniadun
|
|
|
Post by highplains on Apr 4, 2007 18:32:17 GMT -1
Gwyniadun
It is worth looking at the Mole Valley web site. There is a partnership being run their including bailiffs, the police and the Environment Agency. They seem to be working together and what is more advertising the fact and so adding to the benefit of the scheme by letting the thieves know they are working together. Those of the Mole Valley must reckon that the river and anglers help their local economy. I wonder if the EAW and the Welsh Assembly could learn anything? - Probably not!!!
All the best.
Highplains.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Dunstan on Apr 4, 2007 18:58:58 GMT -1
I was told though by a friend(apologies if incorrect) that the trust includes all river users including canoests ! Why not include canoeists? Education is a priority for the rivers trusts and if there's any 'body' that needs educating then it's the canoeists. Like canoeists, we don't have an exclusive right to access to the river or the river itself. The aim of the Rivers Trusts is to bring on board all interested parties and even extend to groups of people who are not presently interested. It's only when a community feels 'ownership' will there be the collective 'will' to conserve and protect.
|
|
|
Post by Gwyniadun on Apr 4, 2007 21:26:41 GMT -1
I see what you say but not necessarily agree, right or wrong. The point to the campaign is that we did not have these problems when we had the 'National River Authorities' the problems have crept in through mismanagement by the EA.
Bailiffs in the past have assisted clubs to prevent canoeing and have given evidence in civil cases.
'Canoes'. Presently we have groups who say 'F U' we are going through permission or not. We will fight this, they do not want to negotiate. Clubs have spent thousands of pounds buying fishing rights and 'Civil Trespass' still exists.
Gwyniadun
|
|
|
Post by Barcud on Apr 5, 2007 0:16:53 GMT -1
Mentioning the EA and canoeists, have you seen their official instructions to bailiffs? Basically it boils down to, don’t get involved. Makes you wonder what the hell we pay our 60 odd quid a year for.
[i]CANOEING AND FISHERIES : GUIDANCE FOR ENVIRONMENT AGENCY FISHERIES BAILIFFS
1. Introduction
Most Fisheries bailiffs will encounter canoeists in the course of their duties, and it is therefore important that they are aware of relevant legislation and Agency policies in respect of canoeing and its interface with fisheries management, fishing and other aspects of Fisheries bailiff duties. These are covered in this guidance note.
1.1 Terms and Definitions
The Environment Agency is referred to as ‘the Agency’ throughout this document.
The term Fisheries Bailiff is used throughout this guidance note and is a collective term which applies to staff who carry out fisheries operational work. (This definition is given in the Fisheries Bailiff Management Procedural Manual).
‘Recreation Officers’ are referred to throughout this guidance note, this is a collective term and refers to staff who carry out recreation operational work e.g. this may be carried out, for example, by Conservation and Recreation Officers, Navigation staff or Fisheries Bailiffs. 2. Legal Background
The Environment Act, 1995, and the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (SAFFA), charge the Agency with the various duties concerned with promotion of recreation, access to water and associated land and the protection of fisheries. The relevant Sections and their interpretation in respect of canoeing and fisheries are given in Appendix A.
3. Canoeing and Fisheries
3.1 Disturbance to Spawning Fish
Canoeing occurs throughout the year in England and Wales on all types of water. The spawning season for salmonids is generally October to March while for coarse fish it is usually March to June. SAFFA, national and local byelaws specify close seasons for salmonids and freshwater fish. There is a possibility that canoeing may be detrimental to fish spawning success at various stages:
3.1.1 Salmonids and Associated Alterations
• disturbance to fish preparing to spawn. Fish generally wait in deeper water, under cover, so significant disturbance or losses due to canoeing appears unlikely. There is little evidence to suggest such disturbance occurs;
• disturbance to fish on spawning beds. Interruption to spawning may lead to lower fertilisation rates, higher predation on eggs and increased mortality due to incomplete redds. This would appear to be the most susceptible stage; damage to unhatched ova and alevins before swim up due to trampling on redds and spawning gravels. There is little documentary evidence to demonstrate that damage does occur. Simple passage of canoes over redds is unlikely to have any impact. 3.1.2 Coarse Fish
• disturbance to spawning fish in shallow areas may result in reduced egg deposition and hence damage to stocks, while physical damage to plants may reduce egg survival rates;
• disturbance to coarse fish spawn either on gravels (eg dace, chub, pike) or on plants (eg roach, bream, carp). Spawning usually occurs at dawn or dusk, but can take place at any time of day.
3.2 Obstruction to Fish
In respect of disturbance or hindrance to fish near obstructions, there is little direct evidence that canoes will cause any problems, though their presence in a relatively confined channel through which fish must pass may act as a deterrent to their passage.
4. Guidelines
In order to avoid confusion for canoeists on the difference between Agency Fisheries bailiffs and gillies or club bailiffs, Agency staff should always show their warrants or identity cards.
4.1 Spawning Disturbance
Only where there is a real risk of disturbing spawning fish or spawning beds should Fisheries bailiffs ask canoeists to leave the water. In all cases Fisheries bailiffs should explain the reason for their action.
Conditions when spawning is liable to disturbance are likely to vary from river to river, therefore it is recommended that local guidance is given to indicate water levels below which the risk of disturbance increases. As susceptible stretches and flows are identified, local canoe access officers should be informed.
4.2 Other Wildlife
Where other wildlife may be disturbed by canoeists (e.g. dipper/kingfisher nesting sites, nests on gravel beds, etc) Fisheries bailiffs should bring this to their attention, if the opportunity arises. Disturbance is only likely to result from sustained activity at a given location. Quiet, steady passage of a canoe is unlikely to cause a problem.
4.3 Access
Agency Fisheries bailiffs should avoid becoming involved in landowner/canoeist disputes over access to rivers. If they do get involved, they should point out that relevant permissions should be obtained. Similarly, Agency Fisheries bailiffs should try and avoid becoming involved in disputes between anglers and canoeists about disturbance or interference with their recreational enjoyment. Fisheries bailiffs should, however, note such incidents and mention them in reports to their Line Manager or Fisheries, Ecology and Recreation (FER) Manager (or Conservation, Recreation and Navigation (CRN) Manager).
Further information regarding access can be found in the Agency guide “Agreeing Access to Water for Canoeing”, July 1999, produced on behalf of the Angling and Canoeing Liaison Group.
Where Agency Fisheries bailiffs (particularly honorary bailiffs) have a private interest in a stretch of water (e.g. as a club member or club bailiff) they should take particular care that when acting on behalf of the Agency (e.g. having produced an Agency warrant) they do not seek to enforce local club rules with respect to access etc.
4.4 Overall Guidelines
To assist Fisheries bailiffs in implementing Agency policy in respect of encouraging canoeing and protecting fisheries, the following guidelines should be followed at all times. Local variations within these guidelines may be considered to meet local requirements but should not deviate from the overall framework of guidance.
• remember - the Agency encourages the responsible use of rivers by canoeists, providing access has been agreed;
• identify yourself as an Agency Fisheries bailiff when speaking to canoeists. Always show your warrant and record any interactions in your notebook;
• make sure you know where canoe access agreements exist and the extent of navigation rights;
• be aware of navigation authorities that exist;
• be aware of local guidelines issued by the Agency in respect of water height and ‘at risk’ areas in a catchment; • avoid getting involved in disputes about access to water or disturbance to canoeing by fishermen or vice versa although each party may be encouraged to respect the others interests;
• remember - canoes are only likely to disturb fish which are spawning when they are actually on the spawning beds, not when waiting in deeper water;
• disturbance to fish is not an offence unless it hinders their passage over an obstruction or fish pass, or fish which may be in the process of spawning are wilfully disturbed;
• disturbance to fish spawning beds and spawning areas is unlikely in high water.
Fisheries bailiffs should undertake a programme of identifying river stretches and flow conditions where canoeing may disturb spawning or hinder fish passage over obstructions or passes, and inform Recreation Officers. Local access officers should be made aware of this information.
Recreation Officers should maintain good working links with local canoe clubs and access officers. Consideration should be given to meeting such interests from time to time to discuss problems within the area.
4.5 Maintenance of Records and Information on Canoeing
Recreation Officers should request details of canoe access agreements from local canoe access officers and pass them on to appropriate Fisheries bailiffs. An inventory of such agreements should be maintained regionally to ensure Fisheries bailiffs are well informed.
Where possible, conveniently located water level gauges should be provided for reaches likely to be used by canoeists. Water levels at which disturbance is likely should be identified. If new gauges are necessary, appropriate provision should be made in the recreation capital programme.
Appendix A - Additional information pertinent to canoeing and fisheries
The main recreational duty is imposed on the Agency by section 6 of the Environment Act, 1995.
Subsection (1) of that section provides that, “it shall be the duty of the Agency, to such extent as it considers desirable, generally to promote –
(a) the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of inland and coastal waters and of land associated with such waters; (b) the conservation of flora and fauna which are dependent on an aquatic environment;
and
c) the use of such waters and land for recreation purposes,
and it shall be the duty of the Agency, in determining what steps to take in performance of the duty imposed by virtue of paragraph c) above to take into account the needs of persons who are chronically sick or disabled.” This gives the Agency general duties to promote the recreational use and account for freedom of access to water and associated land. Canoeing comes within the scope of these duties, as does the sport of angling. In carrying out this duty the Agency must not unduly favour one legitimate user over another.
Other Duties
There are other duties imposed by the 1995 Act which are not confined to water and land associated with water and which have a limited impact on recreation.
Thus it is the duty of the Agency, when formulating or considering any proposals relating to any functions of the Agency, to –
(a) pay attention to the desirability of preserving any freedom of access for the public to areas of woodland, mountains, moor, heath, cliff or foreshore and other places of natural beauty;
(b) take into account any effect which the proposals would have on such freedom of access.
It should be noted that this duty applies in respect of any existing freedom of access.
It is also the duty of the Agency, when formulating or considering any proposals relating to any function of the Agency, to –
(a) take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the beauty or amenity of any rural or urban area or on any such flora, fauna, features, buildings, sites or objects;
(b) to pay attention to any effect which the proposals would have on the economic and social well-being of local communities in rural areas.
So far as (a) is concerned, the effect on recreation is indirect. By taking into account any effects on the beauty or the pleasant or agreeable qualities of such areas, they and a recreational use of such areas may be protected.
So far as (b) is concerned, the economic and social well-being of local communities in a rural area may in some cases and to some extent rely on recreational activity.
The Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (as amended by the Water Resources Act 1991) gives the NRA a general duty to maintain, improve and develop fisheries. The principal provisions relevant to canoeing are:
Section 2(4) “any person who, except in the exercise of a legal right to take materials from any waters, wilfully disturbs any spawn or spawning fish, or any bed, bank or shallow on which any spawn or spawning fish may be, shall be guilty of an offence.”
Unless fish are actually spawning, their disturbance is not an offence. Physical disturbance to spawning beds (e.g. trampling) is an offence even if spawning fish are not present but only if there is a likelihood that spawn may be present (i.e. during spawning periods). Fisheries bailiffs do not have powers to prevent anyone doing anything that may disturb spawning fish or beds. However, after being warned by a Fisheries bailiff that their actions may result in such disturbance and disturbance occurs this may be considered wilful and that person will be liable to prosecution if disturbance could be proven. Exceptions to this are:
Section 2(5) “A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this section in respect of any act, if he does the act for the purpose of the artificial propagation of salmon, trout or freshwater fish or for some scientific purpose or for the purpose of the preservation or development of a private fishery and has obtained the previous permission in writing of the Agency.”
Other legislation relevant to the interaction between canoeists and fisheries are:
Section 12(1)(b) “If any person does any act whereby salmon or trout are obstructed or liable to be obstructed in using a fish pass or whereby a fish pass is rendered less efficient he shall be guilty of an offence.”
Section 12(1)(d) “If any person uses any contrivance or does any act whereby salmon or trout are in any way liable to be scared, hindered or prevented from passing through a fish pass, he shall be guilty of an offence ...”
Section 17 “Any person who ... scares or disturbs any salmon or trout - a) at any place above or below any dam or any obstruction, whether artificial or natural, which hinders or retards the passage of salmon or trout, being within 50 yards above or 100 yards below the dam or obstruction, or within such other distance from the dam or obstruction as may be prescribed by byelaw; or ... c) in any artificial channel connected with any such dam or obstruction, shall be guilty of an offence.”
In respect of disturbance or hindrance to fish near obstructions there is little direct evidence that canoes will cause any problems, though their presence in a relatively confined channel through which a fish must pass may act as a deterrent. However, this is only likely to be a problem if there is extended presence of canoes over several hours. It is by no means proven that the passage of a canoe would constitute scaring or hindering fish, and the evidential burden of proving that this had occurred is considerable. However, it should be noted that under Section 17 of the Act actual scaring or disturbance must occur for an offence to be made whereas Section 12(1)(d) states liability to scare or hinder is an offence. There are also problems in interpreting what constitutes a fish pass.
There have been successful cases where it has been proved that fish have been disturbed by canoeists. In the case of Rawson v. Peters (1972) 116 S.J. 884 ((1972)225 E.G. 89) it was found that canoeists passing up and down a non-navigable river frightened the fish there, which then took sometime to return to the plaintiff's fishery. This was held to be a disturbance of the fishery, even if no-one was actually fishing at the time the canoeists were passing.
The seven Agency Regions and the Environment Agency Wales may also have local byelaws which affect canoeing. The law regarding navigation on rivers above the tidal limits in England and Wales is complicated. Generally, there is no public right of navigation on rivers, and canoeists therefore have to negotiate with fishery owners for the right to pass along a river and riparian landowners for the right to launch and retrieve their canoes. Persons not acting with the relevant permission will be trespassing and may be liable to damages. Access agreements may be drawn up which permit canoeing under certain specified conditions. On other rivers there may be a so-called undisputed public right of navigation. [/i]
|
|
|
Post by sewinbasher on Apr 5, 2007 13:03:41 GMT -1
Why would the EA need details of access agreements if they didn't intend to become involved with enforcing them?
|
|
|
Post by Hoppy on Apr 5, 2007 13:11:03 GMT -1
Mentioning the EA and canoeists, have you seen their official instructions to bailiffs? Basically it boils down to, don’t get involved. Makes you wonder what the hell we pay our 60 odd quid a year for. I'd like to know how they still justify increase in licence fees, when bailiff levels are still decreasing! AND THEN THERE'S THIS REVELATION The licence imposed on us to fish, is paid to the EA - therefore how can canoeists be unduly favoured to the extent that they do not have to pay a licence fee to paddle rivers. Hoppy!
|
|
|
Post by Hoppy on Apr 5, 2007 13:25:25 GMT -1
Why not include canoeists? Education is a priority for the rivers trusts and if there's any 'body' that needs educating then it's the canoeists. Like canoeists, we don't have an exclusive right to access to the river or the river itself. The aim of the Rivers Trusts is to bring on board all interested parties and even extend to groups of people who are not presently interested. It's only when a community feels 'ownership' will there be the collective 'will' to conserve and protect. I fully accept there needs to be agreement between parties involved when it comes to canoeing.. However we must bear in mind the following taken from the EA Generally, there is no public right of navigation on rivers, and canoeists therefore have to negotiate with fishery owners for the right to pass along a river and riparian landowners for the right to launch and retrieve their canoes. Persons not acting with the relevant permission will be trespassing and may be liable to damages. Access agreements may be drawn up which permit canoeing under certain specified conditions.The issue with canoists as i understand it is that they are looking for basically the right to roam and they do not want a) to be licenced) or b) to take part in access agreements. I think rivers trusts may assist this, but the Canoeing issue will be fought on a National Level. Hoppy
|
|
|
Post by highplains on Apr 5, 2007 18:21:53 GMT -1
May I please remind you that the elections are just 1 month away. If we are to make maximum capital from this period we do need to write or email the potential AM's requesting their promise to instruct the EAW to protect the fish in Welsh waters and to provide appropriate performance indicators relating to the illegal taking of fish other than by rod and line.
The reason we need to add this "other than by rod and line" is that it should exclude the EAW from reaching targets by simply wandering around lakes or waters where they find anglers in numbers and then finding licence evaders. There target in relation to licences is to check a percentage of those sold over any season. Great, that really will protect our fish stocks. Ticking and boxes comes to mind!!
All the best
Highplains.
|
|
|
Post by highplains on Apr 6, 2007 18:29:58 GMT -1
Just to let you know that I have emailed each and every Assembly member requesting their support for the campaign to have the number of enforcement officers increased in line with our request to Carwyn . I have requested their permission to post the replies I receive from each one. I will let you know of the response.
They were each emailed individually. Had I sent the same email copied to each from I Assembly address list, it may well have been classified as spam. This way they all get the message. Let's hope they understand and sympathise.
Please send in your own letters and emails. It all adds to the pressure and only takes a few moments.
Need any email addresses just PM me.
Keep up the good work.
All the best
Highplains.
|
|
|
Post by stumpyguy01 on Apr 6, 2007 19:50:51 GMT -1
:Pdoes it mean if i fish from a canoe i don't need a rod liscence,cuz that would suit me,rod liscence fee's are a farce.
stumpy.....
|
|
|
Post by highplains on Apr 7, 2007 16:36:29 GMT -1
I have been amazed at the fact that some of the replies I have had to my email to Assembly Members clearly show that the recipients have not read the content. However the following is the first, of what I hope will be many, to respond in a meaningful way.
I will post all meaningful responses, if they are as worthy as this, regardless of the politics of the sender. Have no wish to get involved in politics so hope, under the circumstances, I will be forgiven.
Regards.
Highplains
William Graham JP (Conservative - South Wales East)
Strongly endorse your campaign and will see that something is done after May 3rd. From a family of keen coarse and fly fisherman I am well aware of the many problems that anglers currently face. As a lay magistrate of 28 years seniority I have not seen enough prosecutions of this most anti social offence.The economic and environmental case is well made.The Assembly must act to safeguard this most valuable resource. Please let me know if I may assist your cause further.
|
|
|
Post by rwgbridgend on Apr 8, 2007 11:03:40 GMT -1
Well done Highplains,
Emailing the assembly members prior to an election may increase the profile of our campaign. We will soon see whose support we can count on after the election.
Firmly standing on the political fence here, i note to date that all those AM's assisting us the most are from the blue persuation! Brynle Williams, Mark Isherwood, Alun Cairns, William Graham. These gentleman between them represent all corners of Wales.
I think that this could be the root of our campaign after the election. If these gents got together or indeed if the Welsh Conservative party took up this issue, maybe we can raise the profile further and get something done.
|
|
|
Post by highplains on Apr 8, 2007 13:26:04 GMT -1
Thank you RWbridgend,
We just have to keep on keeping on. Even a rock will be worn down by the constant drip of water! We have to keep at it.
Thanks again
Highplains
|
|
|
Post by highplains on Apr 8, 2007 16:26:46 GMT -1
Latest meaningful response from candidates:
Keep on keeping on.
Highplains
Tamsin Dunwoody (Labour - Preseli Pembrokeshire)
Thank you for your extremely informative email. I have read it with great interest. From the information you have provided, it certainly appears that there is a significant problem. I am not well versed enough on the issue to be able to answer your concerns categorically but hope the following helps:
I am more than happy to look at this issue in depth. I recognise that protection of our fish stocks and appropriate issuance of licences are critical to proper management of the industry and the rivers. I am not, however, convinced that setting targets for arrests/prosecutions is appropriate. The danger with that approach is over enthusiasm of arrests etc. So I would have some concerns at that approach and would seek a more flexible approach to enforcement based on intelligence gathering and areas of greatest abuse.
Likewise, I am unable to commit any funding to anyone but especially have no Authority to commit funding of the Environment Agency to any part of their operational management.
Should I be in a position to exert any influence in this matter after May 3rd, I re-iterate that I would be very happy to look at the issue.
With best wishes,
|
|
|
Post by highplains on Apr 8, 2007 17:53:25 GMT -1
IN view of the apparent lack of understanding shown in Tasmin Dunwoody's reply I emailed her to explain the actual situation. Below are copies of my email and her reply.
My email
Good afternoon Tasmin,
How nice of you to reply so promptly, and you actually read my email. No, not sarcasm! You would be amazed at the replies I have had from Members who clearly have not bothered even to glance over the contents. So thank you.
I have posted your reply on the web, without comment. I let it speak for itself and I'm sure it will be well received.
I know you are busy, but just for the sake of clarity. The Assembly has asked the Environment Agency to report on it's enforcement activities, however the remit letter from the Assembly does not require these duties to be carried out. It all relates to the cursed performance indicators. The fault lays fairly and squarely with the Assembly.
Sorry to be a bore!
Her reply received a couple of hours later.
Hi *.* ,
Thank you for clarifying that. I will look at the remit letters as soon as I am re-elected!! Fingers crossed!
With best wishes,
Tamsin
Well, lets hope she is as good as her word!
Regards.
Highplains
|
|
|
Post by highplains on Apr 8, 2007 20:38:04 GMT -1
Another response to the campaign.
Glyn Davies (Conservative - Mid and West Wales) Chair of Environment, Planning and Countryside Committee.
Dear *.*,
I agree with your assessment of the importance of fishing to the Welsh economy. It is obvious that there must be sufficient numbers of Fisheries Enforcement Officers to prevent poachers from despoiling the industry. This is not an issue that I have become involved in before. However , I will raise the matter with Environment Agency Wales at the earliest opportunity. Best wishes, Glyn Davies
I will, of course. remind Mr Davies that the issue is the remit letter from the Assembly that fails to instruct the EAW to carry out enforcement duties.
Regards
Highplains
|
|
|
Post by highplains on Apr 9, 2007 9:07:45 GMT -1
I did write to Mr Davies and he responded as follows:
I hope the election goes sufficiently well for me to be in a position to write the remit letter ! This will be done by the appropriate Minister. Glyn
We must keep up the pressure
Regards
Highplains
|
|
|
Post by highplains on Apr 9, 2007 15:47:00 GMT -1
A further worthwhile response.
All the best
Highplains
Dear Mr. *.*
Thank you for your e-mail on behalf of Welsh anglers and the role of the Environment Agency in protecting legitimate fishing and tacking the prevalence of poaching. You say that you have made representations to the current Labour Assembly Government and you expect their response shortly.
You will know that the Assembly does not have full powers over the Environment Agency and we can only make representations at present. Nevertheless, as the leader of Plaid Cymru in the Assembly I can give you I I disagreeurance that I will want to make sure that the Agency carries out its enforcement responsibilities to protect fish in Welsh waters.
Once the election is over, and if we form the next government then we will take on the work started by the current government and work with the relevant stakeholders to seek a satisfactory response by the Agency.
Yours sincerely,
Ieuan Wyn AM
Leader Plaid Cymru
|
|
|
Post by silverinvicta on Apr 10, 2007 11:52:27 GMT -1
Slightly off line Alun..BUT.. oh so very true....unfortunatly.
Bap.
|
|