|
|
Post by wnion on May 9, 2007 16:09:33 GMT -1
Environment Agency News Release
A Cardigan man has to pay a total of £400 in fines and costs after pleading guilty to illegal fishing on the River Teifi in Cardigan last September.
David Nigel Davies of St Mary Street, Cardigan had pleaded guilty at Cardigan Magistrates' Court on 1 May to fishing for salmon and migratory trout by means of an unlicensed instrument * a net
He was fined £200 and ordered to pay £200 in costs. The Court also made an Order of Forfeiture in respect of seized items, comprising a gill net, an anchor and a fish box.
The Court was told that on 14 September 2006 two Environment Agency Enforcement Officers were conducting a routine early morning patrol on the River Teifi at Cardigan. Whilst doing so they saw a net in the river. It had been set from the right bank near the Gateway supermarket car park.
The two officers maintained their watch on the net and at 615 am they saw a Ford Escort van entering the car park. Two men got out of the vehicle and proceeded to retrieve the net.
The officers, who had taken up a concealed position near the men's vehicle saw the men approach the net carrying a fish box. As the men returned and entered the car park they were challenged. One man, the defendant, David Nigel Davies stood still, while the other ran off. The officers took possession of the net, an anchor, which had been used as a weight and the fish box.
Following the case an Agency spokesperson said: 'Migratory salmonid stocks are under pressure, including loss of feeding grounds and netting at sea. Any evidence gained on illegal fisheries activities will lead to appropriate enforcement action. Luckily, on this occasion no fish had actually been taken from the river. Our regular patrols will continue to keep a check on the river.'
|
|
|
|
Post by silverinvicta on May 9, 2007 16:51:10 GMT -1
A d**n disgrace....Poachers caught in the act....a rare occurence by the EA .. and then the courts give a paltry fine...we stand no chance..
the Law truly is an ass..run by ***** i presume it was because ......
"no fish were taken from the river that time" ..
and the EA is run by jokers..
quote ["Any evidence gained on illegal fisheries activities will lead to appropriate enforcement action. Luckily, on this occasion no fish had actually been taken from the river. Our regular patrols will continue to keep a check on the river".' ] Unquote
by regular do they mean once every ten years.. cos thats regular
|
|
|
|
Post by buzzerman on May 9, 2007 19:07:55 GMT -1
i couldnt agree more si, thats unbelieveable might as well let him of scott free one nights work will pay the fine  |
|
|
|
Post by clwydman on May 9, 2007 19:10:07 GMT -1
why was the van not seized as well?
Do you know I have always preached that it is vital that poachers are not challenged or threatened but with action like this you begin to wonder. I know there would be a temporary pollution threat, but I wonder if half a dozen anglers turfed his car in the estuary whether he would come back again?
|
|
|
|
Post by DAZ on May 9, 2007 19:16:24 GMT -1
I agree Bap. Not much of a deterrent is it,they could quite easily make £400 and a lot more on a good night.I have no doubt what so ever they have been back at it since the conviction/fine and probably made a mockery of it down the local pub over a pint,bought out of the money they made on illegally caught salmon/sewin....The pub probably bought the fish  DAZ. |
|
|
|
Post by silverinvicta on May 9, 2007 19:24:32 GMT -1
Yes, you seldom hear of the pri**s who buy the gear of being done..but without them Poachers would have no market...every Poacher i have known in the past has boasted of selling to pubs and hotels, i would presume from this that they were the best customers, could be wrong but...... Si PS i am surprised the poachers name and address is given some anglers could be naughty... there wont be many of the same name living in that street |
|
|
|
Post by Barcud on May 9, 2007 20:02:33 GMT -1
The roll of the courts has not been debated, it’s hardly surprising the EA are reluctant to pursue poachers if it costs them far more to bring them to justice than the miscreant receives in punishment.
|
|
|
|
Post by buzzerman on May 9, 2007 20:05:27 GMT -1
your right there mate the selling /buying of the fish is as much if not more harmful,last year while fishing the salt at angelsey [holls] a man caught his first sea fish 10lb 6oz bass i went in after it with the net i took a pic for him and tried to get him to release it , not a chance he sold it for £25.00 to pay for his ale , that was a beautiful fish proud ,aggressive i know it wasn't poached but it sure felt like it if i had any money on me i would have payed him to release it i swore then that i would never kill a big fish so with out the buyers there would be no sense in poaching  |
|
|
|
Post by watermole on May 9, 2007 22:06:42 GMT -1
You are right Si, the Law IS an ass, but are not the bigger asses those that interpret and dispense it?
An old friend who used to be a coastal and estuary bailiff, now long since retired, often said of the cases where suspected (in other words, known for certain) poachers using 'fixed engines' would be 'staked out' for nights on end, and even on the rare occasions when they could be apprehended in possesion, before they could dump their cheap but cursed, monofilament nets and snared fish, it was incredibly difficult to prove the case, even if it eventually came to court.
Claims of 'mullet fishing' and the like seem to be eagerly accepted by the sitting Judiciary, the case for the defence orating verbal s***e about 'previous good character'etc. etc. they are more interested in courtroom theatricals and winning the case for their 'client' than seeing honesty prevail, I know because I have had to listen to it all and it's enough to make you weep with frustration at their reluctance to effectively deal with it as it should be dealt with.
The real problem is two-fold; firstly, the Law which covers such cases is filled with so many pitfalls that it is nigh-on impossible to prove a case for what it is, beyond doubt. The slightest legal stumble by prosecuting Counsel and the whole shooting match gets thrown out.
Secondly, even in this day and age, the chances of getting a Sitting Bench who actually understand the seriousness of poaching, let alone one which accept that organised criminal poaching for profit really does exist, is pretty remote.
The £400 fine and costs dished out may sadly be chalked up as a minor success in this case and on balance, the EA should not be judged too harshly. I get wound up about poaching the same as all of you, but the men on the ground who have to actually deal with those who poach are so thinly stretched, in comparison to those who 'administer' that their job is next to impossible to do properly. The optomistic claim by the EA to have regular patrols on ANY river is probably the right approach. If it acts as a deterrent to one would-be poacher, then that's better than nothing.
I feel that getting any of the Powers-that-be to spend any of the public purse on really effective anti-poaching measures is going to be a mountain for us to climb. Having the Courts effectively deal with the problem never was, is and never will be an achieveable goal.
Isn't it about time that the Judiciary in these lands put a little less emphasis on the letter of the Law and a little bit more on justice?
Without apology for the rant!
W.m.
|
|
