• 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...

Severn river trust

It must surely be 1.5m directly above the weir tapering down to nil at Knightwick. I really don't see how a river which suffers from high levels of bank erosion and instream habitat loss can benefit from increased flow speed. Trying to get the teme to empty into the Severn ASAP could make flooding worse. After all, when the Severn floods, the Teme backs up to over powick weir anyway.

Paul
 
That makes sense, but in which case how is that going to effect the low levels in the upper river? As for bank erosion, is that not more a fault of bad land management and lack of bankside vegetation?
 
The 1.5 mtrs drop was mentioned by the EA and the RST at the last Ombersley meeting, Myself, Richard Stringfellow,Chris Ponsford and Dilip Saker and the 50 others that took the trouble to attend and were present, were aghast by the casual way this figure was thrown in to the presentation, I suggest at the next meeting, the local anglers that appear incredulous at at this figure of 1.5mtrs go and ask as we did......The EA and the RST said at that meeting that in the early part 2016 a consultation process would be forthcoming where further details would be given.
 
Lawrence Breakspear said:
http://temecatchment.com/wp-content...-the-River-Teme-SSSI-Summary-Report-DRAFT.pdf

See page 13 re: the negative impact of weir removal on deepened areas above the weir
Click to expand...

That just states the negative impact of weirs being in place?!:confused:

The only argument I can see is that it will potentially ruin what was a good stretch for catching barbel, which is fine, it's a barbel forum and you're a barbel angler first and foremost, but I can't see that alone being enough to reverse the decision to remove the weir and I'm not seeing any other substantial reason to keep it.
 
Rhys Perry said:
That just states the negative impact of weirs being in place?!:confused:

The only argument I can see is that it will potentially ruin what was a good stretch for catching barbel, which is fine, it's a barbel forum and you're a barbel angler first and foremost, but I can't see that alone being enough to reverse the decision to remove the weir and I'm not seeing any other substantial reason to keep it.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't stop Lawrence and others trying though should it?

I am going to read through the material Lawrence has posted up but based on what you have said Rhys, there seems to be acknowledgement that the barbel will be seriously/materially/profoundly affected by the proposal? Is the basis for removing the weir to help another species of fish - the Shad? Doesn't that just take us back to Terry's opening position on this entire thread?

I might need to revert back once I have gone through the material, but have I got this manifestly wrong?
 
Sorry Rhys wrong document, the one I posted was the draft impact study for removing the weir, the next document acknowleges the fall of water levels once a weir is removed, and you are right this is not just a barbel thing, its about the future of the river as a Coarse fishery and the weirs historic value, the whole basis of the wier removal is to change the river and return it to its pre wier status, so the very nature of the weirs removal is to change the river so it will be favourable to certain species, they openly admit the this, its being done to create a spawning sight for teh Shad, see next document and read 2.9 iii
 
The Shad has been making the journey up the Teme longer than the Barbel and deserves the right to be able to continue. How we as first and foremost anglers can put our own selfish motives above any other species is mind boggling. We do need to get a reality check here, the Barbel was 'forced' into the Severn System, Barbel numbers have been topped up in many locations through stockings to the detriment of other species.

Of course this has all come home to roost now, with the efforts of bodies like the SRT to try and return the Teme to it's more natural state, with the first regard given to the indigenous species, what the Hell is wrong with that? The Shad used to run in numbers, and by removal of obstructions if that will enable that then I will welcome it, although the Shad is almost a rarity we owe it to the species, as we do to the Chub, Roach Gudgeon, Eel, or any others, get this right and perhaps the Barbel will return, albeit in numbers that will not be to the detriment of other species.

Of course I favour the Barbel to fish for, as we all do, but I do not want a skewed system where by we as Barbel anglers try and influence the outcome of any attempt to imporove any River system, that would be just plain wrong, and I may as well spend my time left at Anglers Paradise.:rolleyes:
 
It seems there's a big divide here with the yes and no's.

It's simple, if the money and will from both sides to come together this could be an excellent improvement for all species...particularly barbel.....a length of say 500 mtr coud give a fresh clean gravel run with limited drop of head.

I struggle to see why the no's are so anti when it could be so positive foe coarse fish?

I came across such a problem a few years ago locally, misinformation and single minded ea officers missed the best option for the river by pass. They were prepared to spend 200k on the wrong option when 200yards down the river was the right answer for 75k

They did it right in the end and did a an excellent engineering project, the fish loved it

Can all the no's with all there knowledge just tell them where they are going wrong and use it to get this project right.....

I reckon you can do this?

Come on coarse guys you can

Cheers Jason :D
 
This isn't about just Barbel...it is about the river ecosystem as a whole.
With a drop of 1.5m how can that be good for the reaches further upstream..... god forbid it my even affect the otter population too! :)
It would appear that those with an intimate knowledge of the river...built up over decades are being body swerved........ time will tell...... in the mean time all that we can do is highlight the issues to those that fish the river.
 
Believe me I understand that the likes of you, Lol, Westy, Terry,and all the rest that have fished the Teme for much much longer than me, would have a better understanding of the nature of the River, but what I don't understand is with the removal of the weir how will levels drop 1.5 mtrs through it's length? Of course it will not, that would not just happen, it defeats all the physics I understand.

But what I do get is removing structures that serve no purpose, save only for a time gone by, should improve the habitat. However the Teme is full of such structures, man made, and have been installed without any consideration, in the past for fish conservation. The most recent structures have been installed with conservation in mind, the others that can be removed seems likely to be.

Whatever the outcome of this work, I cannot see how that will impact in a negative way on the health of the river.

If anyone could explain why they they think the removal of these obstructions would. then I would be grateful.
 
Neil Smart said:
Believe me I understand that the likes of you, Lol, Westy, Terry,and all the rest that have fished the Teme for much much longer than me, would have a better understanding of the nature of the River, but what I don't understand is with the removal of the weir how will levels drop 1.5 mtrs through it's length? Of course it will not, that would not just happen, it defeats all the physics I understand.

But what I do get is removing structures that serve no purpose, save only for a time gone by, should improve the habitat. However the Teme is full of such structures, man made, and have been installed without any consideration, in the past for fish conservation. The most recent structures have been installed with conservation in mind, the others that can be removed seems likely to be.

Whatever the outcome of this work, I cannot see how that will impact in a negative way on the health of the river.

If anyone could explain why they they think the removal of these obstructions would. then I would be grateful.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I disagree that a history of fishing a river gives one's opinion credit, well to be honest at times it's not been one's opinion, but someone elses entirely. I think the opposition to the weir removal has to be considered somewhat desperate when a point in that opposition is that the weir has an historical importance and as such should stay. Is that not a tad weak?
 
Damian Kimmins said:
Sorry but I disagree that a history of fishing a river gives one's opinion credit, well to be honest at times it's not been one's opinion, but someone elses entirely. I think the opposition to the weir removal has to be considered somewhat desperate when a point in that opposition is that the weir has an historical importance and as such should stay. Is that not a tad weak?
Click to expand...

My first sentence was a sincere nod to those who know the Teme, whilst I agree in this case it does not imply that thier views are more valid.
You might note that I may be at odds with thier views anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top