• 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...

Fined

Now I'm a bit out of date as its a while since I left the EA but to support what Ray said It used top be the case that the consents for some STW's said that they had to be complient for a certain persentage of the time, say 90%. This meant that when there hadn't been any flood surges kicking in the storm water overflows for a while they could open up the gates and discharge untreated sewage whilst still remaining complient.

As I said, that may be out of date now, what with EU Directives an all.
 
While Rays posts may be difficult to read there can be no arguing with his knowledge and passion for his subject. If they gave awards to people who have made personal sacrifices in the effort to protect the environment then his walls would be covered in them.
 
Sorry...Changed the colour back on all the posts.

Tony...It was/is 95% but it allows/allowed polluters to get away with it 5 times a year or more without any enforcement or prosecution, unless there is a fish kill and they get caught out. With no one checking the discharge data, water and habitat quality would be lowered thus putting fish, macro invertebrates (food for fish) and everything riverine 'at risk' and 'stressed', even if it did not kill instantly and outright. I am pretty sure that’s what happened on the River Lea when the barbel population at Kings Weir/Fishers Green, developed blindness, cancerous tumors, lesions, lowered immune system, and stopped breeding. It was a prime example of the lowering of water quality by increased volume of sewage input, thus lowering oxygen levels to where some species cannot tolerate, and then die a slow lingering death. It seems cheaper for water companies to dump volumes of raw sewage etc. or other substances at times and risk the chance of being caught and prosecuted which again the fines are minimal to damage caused, unless a fish kill/wipe out takes place as stated. The fines are minimal compared to the cost of treatment so it must be taken into consideration that it is happening all the time seeing as the majority of UK rivers are not in good condition as required by EU standards. It was a known fact that the NRA/EA and the government always moved the goalposts, changing in the ways and methods that they monitored water quality and the life forms present, to make the situation look better for themselves than it really was and still is.
Basically, they continuously change/d the methodology in the way they check and monitor and apply river classifications, use the good bits, leaving out the bad side, and generally thus lowered the targets when they knew they could not reach the original higher standards set out and required!
 
Last edited:
Spot on as ever Ray. I truly wish I had your levels of dedication, commitment and energy. Power to ya mate, and happy new year.

Cheers, Dave.
 
Last edited:
Ray Walton said:
Not exactly true...When they abstract and treat water for human consumption, the removed industrial waste products, heavy metals, pesticide residues, pathogens etc, which are filtered via sand or other, are flushed 'back' into the river from whence they came.... and in a more concentrated form. Yes, they should be removed from the cycle as a 'hazardous waste', but they aint i'm afraid. Alternatively, what they do, is discharge the possibly toxic wet sludge harbouring all the nasties into lagoons on farm land (as they do down here in Dorset) which then slowly seep into the feeder streams and again entering into the main river. When the lagoons are full of the said sludge (and someone complains at the smell or other), they then remove it and spread it on the fields where cattle graze and eat the grass etc! So it all eventually gets washed back into the river via runoff or enters the water table and/or enters into the food chain via the cattle, sheep etc...including the human food chain.
Again, most sewage works nowadays are equiped to remove phosphates, but only remove them 'partially' to a legal level required by the EA and the government, just like many other substances. Even in treated drinking water, there are always traces of the poisons left that have not been removed! They don't kill you outright though, but they are/can be 'accumulative' in ones body over a long period of time. Many people end up and die with cancers and problems usually later in life, and it aint all down to smoking and air pollution i'm afraid.
They may have also banned the usage of certain substances in recent times, but they are still present in our rivers settled out on the riverbed and in silt and mud, and often re-surface back into the river/canals. Food for thought!

Also the discharging by STW's of Raw Sewage is a legal licenced practice authorised by the EA, (the guardians of the river environment) in times of flood, but they do it at other times as well when no one is looking or monitoring them, and usually at night. Why, well it costs them money to treat it fully, so more in the pockets for the shareholders if they can get away with it...and they do!
Why do you think the EA cut down overhanging trees along our riverbanks and take out vegetation obstructions. It is because that when a STW discharges 'raw sewage' when the river rises as Graham says, tiolet paper, nappy liners, condoms, sanitary towels etc would get caught up in the branches and obstructions for all the public to see and expose the issue
Click to expand...

Ray,

You have accumulated a great deal of evidence and added up it comes to nothing short of a national scandal. What are you doing with all this data? Have you thought of presenting it to someone like The Times so that they can expose these wrongdoings to the general public and get the perpetrators brought to book?
 
I agree with Richard. Why have you not presented these findings to the media?..If what your saying is true Ray, im sure the media would be interested..And if it is true, then its a absulute scandal.!!!..
 
Agreed, if this is true then 'we' should go public on this. I have often wondered what I can actually see regarding 'improvement' to our rivers such as the cutting of trees along the bank. This has happened recently on the Avon near Pershore, and for no good reason I could come up with, until now perhaps?
 
Richard - are you sure Ray's so-called 'emotive' argument would be accepted by such an esteemed publication as The Times? Or is it more to your liking now, factually?

Ditto Adrian's comment. :)
 
David Gauntlett said:
That is exactly how I see it Howard. No matter how much you muck about on lakes during the river closed season (though I rarely do now) there is NOTHING quite like the magical start on the rivers. Childish, irrelevant, indefensible it may be...but I still love it, so that'l do for me, long may it last :)

Cheers, Dave.
Click to expand...

Dave,

So you admit that your own relationship to the close season is childish, irrelevant and indifensible and as it is your own opinion then I do respect that. However why inflict this indifensible law on the rest of us who feel differently?
 
Richard Parsons said:
Richard - are you sure Ray's so-called 'emotive' argument would be accepted by such an esteemed publication as The Times? Or is it more to your liking now, factually?

Ditto Adrian's comment. :)
Click to expand...

Whether Ray's argument is to my liking is of no importance. What is important is that if a "respected" angler has such a overwhelming body of evidence that the EA or whoever are doing deliberate harm to our rivers then he would have a duty to try and get such evidence published. I was politely enquiring if he had done so as the press love such stories providing they can be substantiated.
 
Richard Hamlyn said:
Whether Ray's argument is to my liking is of no importance. What is important is that if a "respected" angler has such a overwhelming body of evidence that the EA or whoever are doing deliberate harm to our rivers then he would have a duty to try and get such evidence published. I was politely enquiring if he had done so as the press love such stories providing they can be substantiated.
Click to expand...

This post was going brilliantly and then it all collapsed with the final 5 words.
 
Richard Hamlyn said:
Dave,

So you admit that your own relationship to the close season is childish, irrelevant and indifensible and as it is your own opinion then I do respect that. However why inflict this indifensible law on the rest of us who feel differently?
Click to expand...

I do not 'inflict' this or anything else on you Richard...it just happens to be the law of the land and has been for a very long time, and I happen to agree with it. Although I had nothing to do with the formulation of that law, it suits me, so on that basis, as I said, long may it continue. I don't make a fuss and throw the toys out of my pram on this particular subject, I am just quietly happy with things as they are. The reasons or logic behind this law, be they right or wrong....do not concern me. I am just happy with the way things are....end of.

If you, or the 'the rest of us' you mention, actively campaign and manage to get that law changed because it didn't suit YOU, then by doing that you WOULD be 'inflicting' your preferences on me, and the other 'rest of us' that agree with me.

I like what is, you don't. I am happy to maintain the status quo, you are not. As a result, YOU wish to change what is.....to suit yourself....against the wishes of many others. THAT is what is correctly referred to as 'inflicting' your will on others.

Cheers, Dave.
 
Ha, well said Dave.

It may be worth pointing out that in recent polls (Angling Times and EA) those supporting the close outnumbered those who didnt.
 
I would also like to inflict my will on the rest of you and abolish the divisive outdated law.

I think the rest of Europe manages perfectly well with no close season and I see no reason why we should be lumbered with it just so a few traditionalists can toast the new season every June before they cast a bait to what are usually gravid or severely out of condition, post spawning, fish. Not exactly sporting imo.
 
I have no wish to inflict my will on anyone. However, I would like to see the closed season abolished. That said, I'll not be attempting to get things changed. Should it come to pass, I'll not be forcing anyone to go fishing. Feel free to observe a self imposed closed season of your own if you so wish.;):p
 
Adrian Williams said:
I would also like to inflict my will on the rest of you and abolish the divisive outdated law.

I think the rest of Europe manages perfectly well with no close season and I see no reason why we should be lumbered with it just so a few traditionalists can toast the new season every June before they cast a bait to what are usually gravid or severely out of condition, post spawning, fish. Not exactly sporting imo.
Click to expand...

But I thought the argument was that fish aren't generally spawning in the current close season anyway- it can be at different times. Is it more sporting to try and catch them when they are spawning? If Ray is right then fish will feed and can be caught during the spawning period-whenever that might be.
 
I like it as it is, although I wouldn't mind if it went from April to June inclusive.

or.......the last 2 months would have been Ok, I haven't really disturbed the fish........
 
My own experiences are that spawning fish do not feed. They usually don't feed well just prior to and after either. That's not to say that there aren't fish on the periphery that will feed because they aren't spawning. There are usually fish of other species in close attendance to feed on the spawn. However, fishing amongst spawning fish, regardless of the legality of doing so, is totally unethical as far as I'm concerned. I don't need some entirely arbitrary dates to tell me this. Spawning fish don't suddenly become fair game on the 16th of June.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top