• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

EA Fish Restocking Article

Andy Frances

Andy Frances

Administrator
Staff member
Yes I have read that myself.
You could say its an admission by the EA , that there is a problem.
But until the problems that caused the original stocks to disappear are addressed , I cant get too excited.
 
That's a lot of extra mouths to feed being put into already sensitive ecosystems. I'm no biologist but I'd guess that Mother Nature will diminish the numbers fairly rapidly.
 
Craig Wood said:
Yes I have read that myself.
You could say its an admission by the EA , that there is a problem.
But until the problems that caused the original stocks to disappear are addressed , I cant get too excited.
Click to expand...

Hate to bring politics and the referendum into this, but given that the UK is currently failing to meet the EU directives on water quality and conservation, I wonder what the impact of an 'out' vote would be on our rivers and wildlife?

Dave
 
none what so ever, if it dont work dont go near it or you get a bad name, thats politics these days point the finger anywhere but notat yourselves lol
 
I fear an in vote would have a more drastic effect - even higher abstraction rates to water an ever increasing population.

Nick C
 
David Clewer said:
Hate to bring politics and the referendum into this, but given that the UK is currently failing to meet the EU directives on water quality and conservation, I wonder what the impact of an 'out' vote would be on our rivers and wildlife?

Dave
Click to expand...

Isn't it funny that those in the 'in' camp cite being able to change the environmental agenda from within as being good reason for that, yet some rivers are failing EU requirements now!
 
David Clewer said:
Hate to bring politics and the referendum into this, but given that the UK is currently failing to meet the EU directives on water quality and conservation, I wonder what the impact of an 'out' vote would be on our rivers and wildlife?

Dave
Click to expand...

David Clewer said:
Hate to bring politics and the referendum into this, but given that the UK is currently failing to meet the EU directives on water quality and conservation, I wonder what the impact of an 'out' vote would be on our rivers and wildlife?

Dave
Click to expand...

Pro's and con's on both sides.

For me much depends on how we would replace the Common Agricultural Policy, and EU rules such as the Nitrates Directive and Water Framework Directive. For the majority of our rivers rural land use is THE most important factor in the health of our rivers.

The Nitrates Directive (NVZ) applies to a vast proportion of England (70% I think) and places restrictions on the amount of nitrogen fertiliser which can be applied (to reduce N leaching), rules which prevent livestock farms from spreading potentially high polluting slurry during the highest risk times of year and requirements for safe slurry storage (to reduce the risk of point source pollution incidents). It's not a perfect set of rules by any means, but the evidence does suggest that it has had a positive impact in reducing nitrate levels in surface waters. I think it's fair to say the without the EU, the Nitrates Directive (or UK equivalent) would not have been implemented in the UK due to pressure from powerful landowners and the farming lobby.

Would the NVZ rules be replaced? I'm not so sure they would. If your a wealthy and powerful estate owner, do you really want to have to invest hundreds of thousands of pounds in slurry storage every 25 years? I note UKIP are committed to scrapping the NVZ rules in their manifesto (written by an ultra intensive poultry farmer who would like to be able to dump the polluting by-product of his business as and when he wants).

Then we have the Water Framework Directive - again not perfect, but it does contain some really important and useful measures. Can we really trust a Govt. whose depleted delivery agencies currently seem to go out of their way to manipulate WFD Ecological Status assessments as a means of masking some widespread problems, to replace WFD with something better? A policy instrument that's accountable and open to outside scrutiny and audit?

What happens to the CAP is the million-dollar question. It's inherently damaging to the environment, and whilst on one hand it's hard to see neoliberals like Gideon Osbourne funding it to the same extent as we currently do, it's equally hard to see direct payments to farmers being scrapped. Currently in order to receive direct subsidy payments, farmers must adhere to series of rules known as Environmental Cross Compliance. Rules are in place to reduce soil erosion and run-off, safe use of plant protection products, animal welfare etc. If farms don't comply then they lose their payments. There is school of thought which suggests that should we vote out, then a compromise will be made where farmers get their payments reduced but in order to appease the farming lobby Cross Compliance gets scrapped also.

Finally, the recent debacle over the use of damaging neonicotinoid seed dressings, proven to be highly water soluble and very damaging to the aquatic environment adds weight to the 'in' vote. They would still be subject to widespread use were it not for the EU. Our Govt proved itself to be in-hoc to the pesticide industry. The Govt. 'scientist' who conducted the deeply flawed (and widely criticised) 'scientific' trials upon which the Govt. based it's case for opposing the EU ban on neonics is now to be found working for one of the major neonicotinoid manufacturer. It also doesn't inspire confidence in democracy when the Govt Minister arguing against the ban has family connections to a major neonicotinoid manufacturer!

So in summary, from an environmental perspective in theory I think we could do things better outside of the EU. But in practice I think that it would be highly unlikely. The EU provides a useful buffer against rich and powerful narrow interest groups imho, and as such means it's worth putting up with a few pettifogging bureaucrats from Brussels.
 
In or out of EU , the question of the day for many..
Well , would Otters have been reintroduced if we had not been in the EU ?
Probably not IMO , considering most of the funding came from the EU.
Would things improve for Angling if we came out of the EU ? Again , probably not , as already mentioned we have failed miserably to meet EU Water quality directives..
I seriously worry about the affect Fracking will have if it goes ahead , considering many water ways are linked to underground Aqua springs etc..
I have said this many times before in previous posts , Profit is the biggest threat to all of us .
Various corporations have a policy of Profit before the Environment and I cant see that changing any time soon , in or out of the EU.
The only deal Cameron was ever interested in was simply keeping London's Banking Taxes low and exempt from EU banking tax harmonisation..
The EA had better start breeding more fish , because I reckon our Rivers will need them..
 
Craig Wood said:
In or out of EU , the question of the day for many..
Well , would Otters have been reintroduced if we had not been in the EU ?
Probably not IMO , considering most of the funding came from the EU.
Would things improve for Angling if we came out of the EU ? Again , probably not , as already mentioned we have failed miserably to meet EU Water quality directives..
I seriously worry about the affect Fracking will have if it goes ahead , considering many water ways are linked to underground Aqua springs etc..
I have said this many times before in previous posts , Profit is the biggest threat to all of us .
Various corporations have a policy of Profit before the Environment and I cant see that changing any time soon , in or out of the EU.
The only deal Cameron was ever interested in was simply keeping London's Banking Taxes low and exempt from EU banking tax harmonisation..
The EA had better start breeding more fish , because I reckon our Rivers will need them..
Click to expand...

Hi Craig,

I really don't want to turn this into another otter thread :D, but just a couple of points I wanted to clear up.

It is widely accepted that descendants of the 117 otters released by the Otter Trust in East Anglia between 1983 - 1999 and the 17 released in the Thames catchment in 1999 form only a very small proportion of the otter population of England. The overwhelming majority of wild otters are the result of the natural recovery of the species after the banning of toxic pesticides.

The EU funding mechanism for funding species and habitats projects is the LIFE Programme which didn't commence until 1992, a full 9 years after the Otter Trust started releasing Otters in East Anglia. The Otter Trust was and still is a self funded charity. Where they got their funding from I don't know - but none of the subsequent otter releases between 1992 and 1999 were funded by the EU LIFE Program. They probably didn't need much funding anyway, releasing an average of 8 otters a year over 16 years shouldn't have cost too much.

The general view of most mammal experts and conservation groups at the time was that these releases were unnecessary as the population was clearly all ready starting to grow following the withdrawal of dieldrin and other organochlorine pesticides. The argument being put forward in East Anglia was that the existing, isolated otter gene pool needed augmenting - that was an argument that didn't really wash elsewhere in England.

I was a volunteer for the Cheshire Wildlife Trust 'Rivers and Otters Project' back in those days and we were solely concerned with monitoring, habitat improvements and river corridor surveys. Water Voles, Signal Crayfish and Mink probably received more attention. The notion of releasing captive bred otters was considered a waste of money that could be better deployed elsewhere.

An easily searchable database of all of the EU life projects going back to 1992 can be found here:

Environment - LIFE by Theme

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_LIFE_Programme

Cheers,

Joe
 
Hi Joe,
Understand where your coming from , but as you say its a fact they did use EU money to further the reintroduction program of you know who.;)..
 
Joe, I love your excellent and well informed posts, they are a tonic. However, do you not think that quoting the oft published official figures of the total numbers of otters released is a bit naive?

Are you absolutely certain that there were not numbers of well meaning do gooders (similar to those who released all those mink into our environment way back when) who were raising and releasing otters that were not admitted to, blind eye turned and all that? There has always been a fine line between enthusiasm and fanaticism as you know. There are an awful lot of folk out there who are chaining themselves to railings one week, getting onto whatever other 'cause' appeals to them next week...and joining PETA the one after. There isn't a lot some of these guys won't do, so long as it appeals to THEIR sense of right. It would be a brave man who would dare stand up and claim, hand on heart, that the official figures were correct. If they did prove to be so, it would probably be the first ever set of officially released statistics that WERE accurate :D

Also, do the figures include the unknown numbers of otters that were taken in due to injuries caused by resident adults, road traffic accidents or whatever, and nursed back to health and released/re-released? These are casualties that would have always occurred, but such animals were never before 'hospitalised'. In the natural way of things, they would have died. There are rumours that suggest that some, if not all of the above may well still be going on. If true, what price the published figures then?

Who knows Joe? I certainly don't. What I do know is that there are numerous accounts, videos etc. of otters doing some very un-otter like things, and displaying no fear of humans at all. If the last of the cage reared otters were released as far back as stated, then those animals should be dead by now...so why are these things still being seen?

As you said, it is highly likely that none of these releases were necessary anyway, the recolonization would have occurred naturally with the banning of the harmful chemicals. Which makes it even more of a folly, because then guys like me would have had far less reason to complain :D

Just my thoughts Joe, probably none of it provable....although the fact that the otter release 'thing' was just another case of pointless meddling by misguided mankind is pretty much a given :D

Cheers, Dave.
 
David Gauntlett said:
Joe, I love your excellent and well informed posts, they are a tonic. However, do you not think that quoting the oft published official figures of the total numbers of otters released is a bit naive?

Are you absolutely certain that there were not numbers of well meaning do gooders (similar to those who released all those mink into our environment way back when) who were raising and releasing otters that were not admitted to, blind eye turned and all that? There has always been a fine line between enthusiasm and fanaticism as you know. There are an awful lot of folk out there who are chaining themselves to railings one week, getting onto whatever other 'cause' appeals to them next week...and joining PETA the one after. There isn't a lot some of these guys won't do, so long as it appeals to THEIR sense of right. It would be a brave man who would dare stand up and claim, hand on heart, that the official figures were correct. If they did prove to be so, it would probably be the first ever set of officially released statistics that WERE accurate :D

Also, do the figures include the unknown numbers of otters that were taken in due to injuries caused by resident adults, road traffic accidents or whatever, and nursed back to health and released/re-released? These are casualties that would have always occurred, but such animals were never before 'hospitalised'. In the natural way of things, they would have died. There are rumours that suggest that some, if not all of the above may well still be going on. If true, what price the published figures then?

Who knows Joe? I certainly don't. What I do know is that there are numerous accounts, videos etc. of otters doing some very un-otter like things, and displaying no fear of humans at all. If the last of the cage reared otters were released as far back as stated, then those animals should be dead by now...so why are these things still being seen?

As you said, it is highly likely that none of these releases were necessary anyway, the recolonization would have occurred naturally with the banning of the harmful chemicals. Which makes it even more of a folly, because then guys like me would have had far less reason to complain :D

Just my thoughts Joe, probably none of it provable....although the fact that the otter release 'thing' was just another case of pointless meddling by misguided mankind is pretty much a given :D

Cheers, Dave.
Click to expand...

Hi Dave,

I trust the figures regarding the official releases made by the Otter Trust, I guess its important to understand the context.
Two main points on this; each release was subject to a licensing process, so accurate records were kept by English Nature - an organisation which was generally very well run and mostly staffed by decent, principled naturalists. It was a great shame that Blair's Govt. effectively did away the organisation by merging it with the Countryside Agency and Rural Development Service when they created 'Natural England' - a very different organisation! Most of the best people left to work in the private sector.

Secondly; it's hard to see why the Otter Trust would have released otters without declaring them? Every release was seen as a good news story, and accompanied by a press-release and a great fanfare - a way to try and draw more funding and support I suppose. Local dignitaries invited to open the cage door etc. If one was to be really cynical, one might actually think it was more likely that less otters were released then they declared...

I don't doubt for minute that other parties may well have undertaken some unlicensed (and therefore illegal) releases. As you say, if there are people willing to release mink then pretty much anything is possible. Some of these releases may well be still occurring - who knows? If so then I doubt it's a common (mal)practice.

Wild otters found injured on the roads etc do get rehabilitated and re-released once they are considered fit enough - but I doubt they last very long in the wild. I've always assumed that the reports of tame (or in other words starving) otters belong to this group. I think I read somewhere that this is thought to be in the region of 10-12 otters a year.

Cheers,

Joe
 
Hi Joe,

It's a great shame that Blair's government ever was....end of.

I am embarrassed to admit that I voted for the guy, and thought for quite some time that he was doing well. Just shows what a pillock I can be at times :D:D:D




Cheers, Dave.
 
David Gauntlett said:
Hi Joe,

It's a great shame that Blair's government ever was....end of.

I am embarrassed to admit that I voted for the guy, and thought for quite some time that he was doing well. Just shows what a pillock I can be at times :D:D:D




Cheers, Dave.
Click to expand...

I never voted for him, but I was pleased that Labour won the 1997 Election. He did do some decent things (I reminded of that every time I take my daughter to Manchester Children's Hospital), but then the Messiah Complex kicked-in and he lost the plot. I think the American's have it right by not allowing any President to serve more then two years.

Cheers,

Joe
 
Joe Winstanley said:
I never voted for him, but I was pleased that Labour won the 1997 Election. He did do some decent things (I reminded of that every time I take my daughter to Manchester Children's Hospital), but then the Messiah Complex kicked-in and he lost the plot. I think the American's have it right by not allowing any President to serve more then two years.

Cheers,

Joe
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that it's two terms, Joe, although years would almost certainly be better if Donald Trump should win (and heaven help us if he does..!!!)

Anyway, thanks for your interesting and informative posts, which have confirmed my fears that an 'out' vote could be disastrous for our rivers and flora and fauna. I fully agree that Natural England is a waste of space and bears no comparison with English Nature that preceded it. Fishing the Hants Avon, as I do, I am currently 'enjoying' the Avon valley restoration scheme - a fine idea in principle but unworkable in practice. How can the valley revert to its Victorian ways and appearance in the 21st century?

But I digress.... I'm just glad that my original comment has generated your insightful contributions. Here's hoping that we don't live to regret the result of the referendum, whatever that may be.


Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top