• 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...

Government petition response

Ian Grant

Senior Member & Supporter
Hot air ? lets hope not, and that finally this new legislation will give the EA some teeth, - we shall see

Ian.

Tuesday 9 February 2010
Carppoaching - epetition response
We received a petition asking:

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to provide funding to cover frequent nightly security patrols on UK canals, lakes and rivers to protect and prevent decimation of our wildlife.â€

Details of Petition:

“There have been more and more cases of eastern europeans illegally fishing our canals for carp and other specimens of fish at night, not by catch and release but to eat them. This includes swans and ducks. These people do not have licences,do not use the proper fishing tackle and equipment and are destroying our wildlife in large numbers. There needs to be tougher legislation in place to stop this activity, not just signs, deportation or arrest. Please support and put an end to this barbaric activity taking place.â€

· Read the petition
· Petitions homepage

Read the Government’s response
The Government is aware of the concern over the impact of illegal angling or poaching of freshwater coarse fish, such as carp.

The issue is being addressed through new national fisheries byelaws. The Environment Agency (EA) expects to introduce these in the spring of 2010. The byelaw will make it illegal to remove any fish from still waters and canals without the owner’s written permission. For rivers, the byelaw is slightly more complex and sets limits on the take of certain listed species, including carp and perch.

The proposed byelaws and supporting information, can be viewed on the EA’s website at: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/recreation/fishing/114281.aspx

The enforcement of the new byelaws will be critical. The EA will be acting on reports and intelligence, focusing efforts on problem sites. It is also looking at how it can improve its ability to respond to incidents reported at night and weekends.

In relation to the taking of swans and ducks, all wild birds are afforded statutory protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Subject to certain exemptions, it is an offence under section 1 of the 1981 Act to kill, injure or take any wild bird; to take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built; or to take or destroy an egg of any wild bird.

Legislation is in place therefore to ensure swans and ducks are protected.

The UK Government has no plans to introduce nightly security patrols on UK canals, lakes and rivers. The EA is committed to enforcing fisheries legislation, with priority given to those incidents likely to have the biggest impact on fish stocks. Offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are enforced mainly by the Police. Members of the public are, therefore, encouraged to report any incidents of illegal fishing to the EA, and any incidents of the illegal killing of wild birds to the police, as soon as possible.
 
Thats what i meant by ' we shall see ' Mark, i don't believe anything can possibly change with the number of bailiffs they employ at the moment, even if the public report incidences of fish stealing, could they in all reality respond with any realistic chance of apprehending the culprits.
I'm pretty sure with the pressure police are under they wouldn't in most circumstances even give reports of killing wildlife top priortity.
Unless they are going to dramatically increase the bailiff numbers, they can't possibly expect to be able to respond in time to apprehend any offenders in all but a small minority of cases, which no doubt they will publicise to the maximum, i know i'm pessimistic but i've a feeling not much will change. :(

Ian.
 
Hi men ,

Ian , perhaps the fines they claw back from catching people / prosicutions could be used directly to fund more baliffs :D.

Hatter
 
Simple solution

Increase the rod licence from the paultry sum it is now to a more realistic amount and with the increased revenue employ private individuals. The trouble with anglers is thay want to pay nowt but expect everything in return.........£100 per year for instance equates to less than £2 per week and a fraction of what some waste on over hyped tackle and bait.

Best Regards
Dave
 
Last edited:
Couldn't agree more Dave.

We get what we pay for, which ain't a lot. Until we pay more nothing will change.
 
Dave, John, i agree whole heartedly, but the instigation of that needs to come from the EA, together with a statement that the dramatic rise in license fee's would be intended to fund not just more bailiffs but enough to bring about a reasonable rate of prosecutions of these people.
But i wonder to myself, - why should we anglers have to pay for the folly of a government that allowed these people into this country in the first place ?
John you say we pay for what we get, and i agree, thats true of life in general, and i for one would be willing to pay more in return for more from the EA, including more bailiffs, but lets not confuse that with my reluctance to pay for dealing with immigrants who regard our fish stocks and wildlife as their own personal larder. Personaly i think this should be a police issue, the killing of bird life already is, though i'm not aware of any succsesful prosecutions on that score either.
So yes i'm willing to pay for more bailiffs, in fact i'd be happy to, but the only way to deal with the problem refered to in the petition is to use whatever means are at the disposal of the law, the EA, and Police, and not say that this or that is the department of one or the other splitting their forces if you like.
An angler should be able to dial 999 report an act of fish stealing in progress and expect an immediate police response.
the courts should then if finding them finding them guilty immediatly deport them and their family.
Perhaps then when the word gets round their community that the consequences are immediate deportation to from whence they came, it may act as a detterent to others who might try it.
If they want to live in our country, and abide by our laws fine if not get out and stay out.


Ian.
 
Evening all,

I used to work for the EA in the Lower Trent Area, Midlands Region for approx 6 years. I left approx 3 years ago mainly because of the EA's big 'business' talk/policy & very little respect & funding for the front line staff like Environment Protection (pollution control which I was employed) & definately the fisheries section.

Across my time in this region, the fisheries section funding/staffing levels were slashed year after year. The area manager approx 5 years ago wanted to even close Calverton Fish Farm. Please note that no matter what you are spoon fed by the EA policy, staffing levels will not be increasing.

There is little or no chance that you will get anyone to attend if someone witnesses poaching. Due to H&S restraints, the very nature of policing our waters means that there is a slight chance of confrontation so the EA would have to double man such incidents. Given that if you actually enquire as to how many qualified, able bodied fisheries officers in your area (poss 2-3 to cover 3 counties!!) who are truly obtainable & want to attend (via the standby officer) during peak seasons - in hours there is little chance but out of hours - good luck. Just get some figures on response times to any fishery incident reports - the figures will be staggering.

I used to be a senior Environment Protection Officer & used to participate in the standby rota & incident call out outside of officer hours. I used to have enough problems getting the expected support from an internal position - so for you chaps...

I did not really mind as I knew alot about fish & fresh water science I could deal with most incidents by myself. However, when it comes to prosecution using the appropriate fisheries laws one requires the appropriate experience, enforcement & warrant powers. Only fisheries staff have these.

The problem was not with the front line staff, they were all great guys & the section management too. Each year I would see a member of staff promoted, side-lined or retire & they would not get replaced.

Another problem with attendance is that one has to drive there. Rightly, we used to get mileage quota's which again were successively slashed yearly. The quota is not even enough to attend the quarterly statutory inspections we had to do nevertheless understake spot checks on problems areas or attend incidents. I used to have a patch that was about 30m from the office & then spanned another fifty miles. Any incidents at the furthermost point could swallow most of the mileage given a few visits. Point being here is that the present Agency stance is that most problems can be sorted via the office!

Overtime. Each section is again targetted on this & any limited overtime will probably spent on paperwork in the office. Any out of hours policing will be mostly limited to the likes of Makins or Drayton whereby a given resource will yield a given result unlike wandering down a mostly human free river.

The EA stated that they will be acting on reports & intelligence. Reports: all our reports on out of season fishing are entered onto the National Incident Reporting System (NIRS). I used to look at the fisheries section within NIRS during May time. The amount of outstanding, unattended reports at this time was incredible. As far as intelligence goes, there's not enough staff, experienced or not, to give an intelligent response. For the likes of salmon rivers, maybe. But these guys are not well paid (mostly less than £15K) & the pay structure within each grade, there is no room nor incentive for a life's dedication to fisheries. For instance, the maximum front line fisheries officer could manage what was known as a grade 4 (standard) which the upper levels of experience could possibly get £16-17K maximum. What does that money a get a parent nowadays? This paltry amount reflects the respective Hayes Score so the management state they get paid for the respective role & the responsibilities thereof.

Its been considered to increase the cost of the rod license. Would this be 'ring fenced' & go to front line staffing issues or will it be skimmed to policy making & all its pretty talk? It all reads powerfully well but where's the substance?

The angler should not have to pay for the issues raised. The aquatic environment is enjoyed by all & for its quality, the quantity of diverse flora & fauna, its preservation & improvement should be the tax payers burden as a whole, not a stealth tax for a good minded few. Obviously we have a direct vested interest & we voice this via appropriate channels; but should the rest of the population finantial responsibilities be wavered despite our finantial intentions?

For info - I enjoyed working for the EA & with all of the staff. I worked for the EA for 6 years, left & then went back for a year filling a temporary role & had the chance to make this permanant. I was even on a good wage for a field officer (£23K).

However, I left mainly for the following reasons: A bigger shift to non-attendance on incidents; standby, which by its very nature was to ensure that the EA did not attend; mileage quota; re-evaluating & lessening officer Hayes scores to limit any chance of wage appreciation; & lowering the achedemic & experience requirements for new personel.

This read pretty negatively & I post this just to give a realistic picture of what the EA has become. However, I have to stress, the EA is the only EA we have & the staff on the whole are well indended individuals. Its just the small matter of getting more experienced, dedicated front line staff in all of its sections & getting some form of attendance.

Given the national debt & public sector redundancies, does one really consider that the environment, nevertheless a bit of poaching will matter in the grand scheme of things? DIY civil proceedings is probably all we have left.

Cheers for bearing with me,

Jon (once was weelo)


PS For info, when an individual or company is successfully prosectuted, the eventual fines go to the Crown not the EA. The EA will get the costs of the investigation, cleanup, stocking where necessary, etc. Some investigations can be protracted & on cost submittance to the courts, the judges consider that these are excessive so reduce the amount paid back to the EA. For info, investigational costs can sometimes be far greater than the fines given!
 
And there you have it in a nutshell, thanks for posting that Jon, you've confirmed what my logic always led me to suspect :(

Ian.
 
Apologies in advance for this long one...

Please don't be too disheartened. For the fisheries section its been the reality since the EA was formed.

Look at things from a different stance. I fish the across the whole of the Trent & to be honest it fishes its head off with now a diversity of specimen fish.

Pre EA/NRA days, due to poor regulation & lack of infrastructure across the catchment, certain areas used to have little diversity & an abundance of pollution tolerant fish. Barbel populations were smaller & suffering or manifesting many physiological symptoms of stress. The emphasis for the last decade was more on pollution control of point source & is presently more on diffuse sources of pollution. Get the habitat right & then the fish populations will be fitter & sustain themselves.

Alot of the improvements go hand in hand with the privatisation of the water utilities (their forced investment thereof) & the demise of the UKs manufacturing base.

As has been stated on another thread in a slightly different vien was & is that 'money buys you excellent river management (and the political clout to make problems disappear)'. For any economy with a high population, a pristine environment is a luxury - a country needs a high GDP, high exports, high employment & then through taxation & licenses money can be reinvested on the utopian dream.

In present day reality, we have a low manufacturing base sevice economy with low exports & high import deficit. The country presently one of the highest national debt:GDP ratios of the G20 countries. On a personal level we have an insatiable thirst for credit.

So where is the money going to come from to sponsor our needs & wants lists? Who can set the spending priorities & could we necessarily do a better job given the ability to assimilate the whole picture?

We live in a society which has to exist by effecting the environment we live. Its impossible to stop fish being taken - poaching has not just arrived via our eastern european counterparts - they are just so obvious about it as they know no better & so have no inhibitions about being sneaky or stealthy about what they do. For some, speaking a different language or being foriegn does not help neither.

Regarding pollution. It happens - sometimes by intent, mistake or ignorance. For instance, the recent upper trent pollution caused by a trader discharging cyanide based chemicals into the sewerage system so knocking out the recieving treatment works so discharging contaminated untreated sewage into the Trent in almost drought conditions. Alot of fish died.

Now - understandingly, there was alot of angst, but that company could have been on the bread line & a simple mistake by a well intended, yet niaive individual, could be enough to close that factory with the permanant loss of industry from that area. This might or not be the case in this instance but lets work with industry rather than keep on pushing them into finantially difficult corners. It could easily be your company & your job tomorrow - one can utilise the expensive belt & braces approach but not all things are foreseable & in the long run its not economical & certainly not competitive in this very small world economy.

The point being is that we want to live in a society which has a strong economy & which as a consequence will always produce a certain level of pollution with the occaisional larger incident. We equally have to tollerate the fact that people of all walks of life take fish for the table, transfer fish from one venue to another, country to country.

We all have a 'want list' & then there is the 'need list'. We need to be tolerant of a point between these two.

We pay a nominal fee for a rod license which will proportionally get us a nominal service. We pay tax to a depressed economy, yet increasingly demand much, expect much more than any national organization, private or state-run, can deliver.

Hopefully your still with me & not fell off asleep...yet. Not more I promise.

Public services cannot sponsor our want list. As has been said before get involved & be persistant. Have a strategy before hand & expect to be dissappointed.

If your on a club committee, get to know your subcatchment fisheries officer & members of the environment protection team (pollution control). Try & be flexible with an open mind, listen & ask relevant questions. Take on board their recommendations, things cannot be done over night & will take time. Keep on knocking at the appropriate doors, write letters, keep notes then do it all over again. Have patience & don't jump on the band wagon demonstrating ignorance thats akin to to media hype to that found in the pages of the News of the World!

Our want list will get the sterile default response, but with appropriate, measured persistance, now & again we might inch that little bit more forward.

Its people such as those actively involved in the Trusts, etc that lobby on our behalf, the likes of Ian Grant taking the time to inform us of the present pressures we as a sport face. Thank you for all you do.

Police your own river stretches more yourselves sharing or making madatory rules that the members must not only attend a working party once a year, that they must also participate in a rota to walk the banks making a presence known.

But I forget - that takes effort. Sorry - can we get someone else to do this for me because times too precious & to be honest, I cannot be bothered! But would you please take the time to listen to me witter on about these awful polish people because we want you to walk around our land then kick them off!

Do we want a nanny state or can we look after our own responsibilities?

With respect to our Eastern European counterparts is there any room for education or dare I say it, inclusion? Even the French & Spanish have started to realise that coarse fishing can be a good resource, & this idea is very slowly diffusing across Europe - that one does not have to take so much from the immediate environment around us.

In essence, please be more tolerant & realistic about what the UK is about. We are no longer that rich & may be over the next decade we might even think that we did not have it so bad after all.

Cheers, Jon
 
Back
Top