• 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

Bretch Morris of the EA is the man that is creating the initiative to remove the Weir, supported by the SRT and as I understand it, the whole thing is going through its discussion phase at the moment, the EA are already getting very twitchy because of the after effects of the weir removal on the coarse stretches above the weir,Its strange, how I have more in common with the Battle of Worcester society regarding Powick weir, as they dont wont the weir removed for historical reasons!!
 
Well thanks Lol, it certainly a good insight from someone who had a depth of understanding about such things, the good things about forums such as this is that points can be argued and people's opinions swayed rather than just a 'like' or a one line reply.
Keep on keeping on, and you really need to get back on the bank I reckon, it's within the bank so looking good.:)
 
Jason Bean said:
And dave gauntlet you have not any basis for your own argument judging by your posts
Click to expand...

You would be right Jason, I have no factual, scientific evidence or 'basis' to back my argument....but then that's not too surprising because I am not arguing am I? I am merely supporting a man who does have a multitude of facts to back up his views. What I DO have though is a decent amount of common sense and 71 years of experience, which I try apply to this discussion.

The problem as I see it is that we tend to assume, most of us anyway, that the ever present, ubiquitous 'They'.... know what they are doing. The majority of us tend to assume that 'They' are always right...they have to be right don't they? I mean, surely, 'They' run the country and everything else we rely on.

Well, actually, no, 'They' don't always know what they are doing, and like the rest of us, 'They' are frequently wrong. The 'They' in this instance are the EA and the SRT....and the SRT are most likely only agreeing to this because 'They' (The EA) told them it was absolutely right to do it.

Ok, in light of recent events, do you wish to tell the residents of Carlisle and other parts of Cumbria and Lancashire that 'They' (the EA) know what they are doing? These folk were told that the last devastating floods were a 'Once in a hundred years' event. Six years on, (my maths are rusty, but I think that's 94 years early) here we are again. And guess what...the floods this time came over the top of the new flood defenses....which 'They' had told them would definitely do the job. Now it may be that the EA were misled in this by another 'They', i.e, the Met. Office. Care to run a poll on how often the Met. Office get things spot on?

So, in this case, you have the EA 'They', who often take advice from the Met. Office 'They', advising the SRT 'They'....that removing the weir at Powick would be just fine. And you are happy to go along with that, on the say so of all those 'They's'? Really?

Perhaps you might like to get further advice before you finally agree that it makes sense? You could always ask some of the most influential and powerful 'They's' in recent history? I will give you a couple of 'They's' to start you off. How about Tony Blair and George 'dubleya' Bush? I am pretty sure you can rely on their advice....most people did a few years back. Not sure the people of Iraq will go along with that thought though?

Never mind, you and 'They' are probably right.

Cheers, Dave.
 
I live 20 mins from Keswick and having been there as the defences were breached, David, I think you're wrong to use that an example of poor planning and and consequent design.
The fact of the matter is that the language used in predicting these events leaves open for when they might occur, and there is nothing to say that this event came early at all.
The level of rainfall that fell was obviously something that was not predicted because it was something seemingly impossible to predict using models based on past events given records going back 220 odd years.
The defences that were built were astonishing in their effectiveness at preventing something quite beyond what I witnessed on Sunday, and for that, I think you will find that most, in Keswick anyway, will agree.
 
Hi Damian, it stated on local radio, that 10% of the average annual rainfall, fell in one day :eek:, thats a lot of rain. It also said, that the main road through the village, was under 2 to 3 ft of water, without the defence system, it would have been very much higher.
 
Damian Kimmins said:
I live 20 mins from Keswick and having been there as the defences were breached, David, and I think you're wrong to use that an example of poor planning and and consequent design.
The fact of the matter is that the language used in predicting these events leaves open for when they might occur, and there is nothing to say that this event came early at all
The level of rainfall that fell was obviously something that was not predicted because it was something seemingly impossible to predict using models based on past events given records going back 220 odd years.
The defences that were built were astonishing in their effectiveness at preventing something quite beyond what I witnessed on Sunday, and for that, I think you will find that most, in Keswick anyway, will agree.
Click to expand...

Damian, I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say in your post. Firstly, these poor people WERE told that the terrible flooding of 2009 was a 'Once in a hundred years event'. Now obviously, that doesn't mean that the next such event will come exactly one hundred years to the day from that first....but surely you are not trying to claim that SIX years is an acceptable fraction of the one hundred years statement of expectation?

Secondly, we are constantly being told that global warming, or any of the pseudonyms that fact now goes under, is causing massive changes, increasingly unpredictable world weather events etc. On a regular basis we are seeing horrific footage of floods, earth slides, droughts, unprecedented storms....you name it, the world is seeing record breaking levels of it. This, and the unpredictable nature of it, the increasing frequency of it, is a constant source of dismay and discussion on TV and radio news channels and dedicated documentaries. And that all started happening at least fifteen years ago.

So, bearing that in mind, I don't think I am wrong or out of order when I suggest that the new flood defenses WERE a shining example of "poor planning and consequent design" as you put it. You say "The level of rainfall that fell was obviously something that was not predicted because it was something seemingly impossible to predict using models based on past events given records going back 220 odd years."

Well, yes, we know that...but as I say, we have been warned for many years that the world weather patterns are changing, getting far worse, less predictable, to expect them to steadily get worse....and so on, so what the hell is the point of "Using models based on past events given records going back 220 odd years?" I think that could reasonably be labeled as 'poor planning', don't you? If I were a grumpy old curmudgeon, I might even go as far as labeling it criminally incompetent! :D:D

Finally, your last sentence reads "The defences that were built were astonishing in their effectiveness at preventing something quite beyond what I witnessed on Sunday, and for that, I think you will find that most, in Keswick anyway, will agree." Again, you leave me speechless...(A) because I am not 100% certain what that actually means in English. But, either way, (B) Keswick was flooded! I think actually, this particular resident of Keswick would rather agree with me, and I quote....

Keswick resident Rich Gale, who experienced previous floods in 2005 and 2009, said he had felt "reasonably safe" since the Environment Agency extended the town's flood defence wall and he added protection to his own home.
But he said: "We stayed in our house because after the 2009 flood we bought flood defences for our home so we thought we'd better stay in and try and mop up any leaks that come in, but we just got overwhelmed and we ended up leaving our house."

Hmmmm. It seems from that quote that not only were the new defenses inadequate, but the combination of those and his own newly installed house defenses couldn't cope. They may in Keswick have alleviated the severity of the flood somewhat, but many houses were still inundated there, and elsewhere in the area it was plain from the TV newscasts that the extent of it was horrific. There is not a lot of point in telling someone who's house is under two or three feet of water that 'It would have been a lot worse but for the new defenses!'

Cheers, Dave.
 
What sort of a impact did the flood of 2007 have on the Teme and Severn ?
Lots of anglers and EA bailiff's I spoke to after the floods all said the Teme and Severn was not the same river after the floods ?

Could the true reason for removing the weir be to try and stop future flooding ?
 
I think we are skiing a bit off piste here chaps . The thread is about the SRT and the debate seems mostly to centre on the removal of a weir and the SRT's support for otters being part of the riverine environment . There is also an implication in some of the posts that the SRT are pro game fishing . I have had a look through the SRT website and there is nothing in there to say that they are pro game , in fact they only want to encourage involvement of all angling organisations . As for the Otter business, well as I said in an earlier post if they were pro game angling why on earth would they be encouraging otters who no doubt like a Salmon or a trout to eat ? As this is a single species forum it's inevitable that people will argue from a barbel perspective , this said I can't really see that anything the SRT are doing is really going to wipe the barbel out from the Severn and it's tributaries [ Yes I know the otters have done that already ....] . Unless we all pull together with organisations like the SRT , the RSPB etc who are only trying to enrich the riverine environment as a whole then little factions of anglers bleating about there own niche interest is NEVER going to help the bigger picture of angling and all the huge challenges fish populations face
 
Mike..my original SRT question was.. "looking at the work they plan to do and the work that they have done, they appear to be more 'Game' related rather than 'Coarse'. That is, they wish to improve Severn catchment watercourses, with an emphasis on attempting to improve the salmon and trout fishing. Do you reckon that's fair comment??"

No one is suggesting SRT is "pro-game" (as you put it) or 'anti-coarse'.. I asked for opinions on emphasis. And, considering their R. Rhea (almost exclusively game/fly only) project, then I tend to think that any emphasis there may be IS towards game species. As such I do not intend doing any bequeathing in their direction. Nuff said.
Weir removal? Otters?...both are worth discussing, on this thread or any other. I'm not sure how regularly you fish the Teme Mike, and how intimate your knowledge of the river is.. but these ARE issues that concern us who fish (or used to fish) the (once mighty) Teme.
ATVB
Terry
BTW... About 4 or 5 years ago there was a 5hr match on the Teme at Eardiston. Every single angler caught multiple trout, but not one barbel was hooked or landed. I believe (no, I've got no proof) that 8oz to 2lb trout would cope with otters in their narrow river environment much much better than 5-10lb barbel would.
BTW2!....if I wish to report a problem re. the number of cormorants, or the plagues of goosander (armadas of 16 or more, working their way upstream...bank to bank) then it wouldn't be the RSPB I would turn to. They aint getting a bequest either!
 
My understanding is that the removal of Powick weir is an EA initiative, supported by the SRT, under the spurious guise of making a better access for migratory species, namely the Shad, my argument is that by doing this the change of the river will be dramatic, especially as a mixed fishery, and most especially as a barbel river, my hope has always been that it will recover as a premier big barbel river, Otters dont last forever and they have relatively short lives and if they dont breed they soon die off, it has been recognized that Teme Otter numbers are reducing, but what I and others dont want is the SRT backing some sort of release programme, be in no doubt unofficial clandestine Otter releasing is still going on in areas where Otters die off, due to the heavy metal and chemical pollution of our rivers, the very least it does is that it effects their ability to propagate, its clear the SRT supports Otters being within the Severn basin, now thats a problem for me and other barbel specialists, coupled with their support of the removal of Powick weir puts me and others in an untenable position, where we feel we have to make a stand and that means withdrawing our support for the SRT, unless they change their ways, just remember the Teme is a shadow of what it once was as a coarse fishery, and now none existent as a barbel fishery, ok they are contributing to a worthy Phd study on namely barbel on the Teme, this I support and I hope it will show up the true issues as to why the barbel populations have crashed, what we dont need to told is that barbel feed off shrimps, they feed less in winter, that they spawn on gravel, they are slower growing than their Severn counterparts and that the move up and down the river and over weirs. It would be great if they admitted that the reason for the demise of the Teme barbel is partly because of the uncontrolled reintroduction of the Otter and whatever else they come up with, but as I said previously, my theory is that the decline in barbel numbers on the Teme is more to do with declining Severns barbel population, it also might allow them to understand why we have witnessed the unprecedented biggest decline in barbel numbers on a national basis of the last 10 years, yes more rivers may have barbel in them, but when you look at what has happened its disgraceful that little has been done other than to stock in their tens of 1000's farm bred barbel, instead of looking at the root cause....so the last thing the Teme's coarse fish needs is a reduction of depth and more Otters.
 
One thing we dont wont to do is trust the EA on so called flood defense, back in the 90's one of the most prolific stretches of the Teme was Cotheridge, a home of some truly wonderful barbel, a part of the river that was full of character, overhanging willows, deep pools, narrows, deep bends, it was barbel heaven......then the NRA vandals turned up, within a week overhanging willows had been up rooted or chopped down, bullrush and reeds pulled up, sunken trees (snags removed), it was like a nuclear bomb had gone off, with the epicenter being that short stretch of river, all in the name of flood defence, the following year I spoke to the farmer who farmed the land downstream of Cotheridge and in all the time his family had farmed the land they never lost crops or livestock to floods, the year after the so called flood defence teams he suffered the worst floods of his land in living memory......so could they, the EA in their wisdom consider taking out Powick weir in the interests of flood defence, never say never is what I say....
 
Lawrence Breakspear said:
back in the 90's one of the most prolific stretches of the Teme was Cotheridge, a home of some truly wonderful barbel, a part of the river that was full of character, overhanging willows, deep pools, narrows, deep bends, it was barbel heaven......then the NRA vandals turned up, within a week overhanging willows had been up rooted or chopped down, bullrush and reeds pulled up, sunken trees (snags removed), i.
Click to expand...


Do we now not live in an age where the old perceived wisdom in many aspects of our life is being constantly questioned and re-jigged?
Around about '95 ish I stopped some similar habitat destruction that was being carried out by the NRA on a favourite stretch of river that the club (who I was then sect. of) own the riparian fishing rights. The reason given for clearing damn near every tree and bit of overhanging cover was economics and the prevention of future flood risk... ie...tree falls into the drink,..."so whilst the crew and plant are on site we look at any other potential risk that may occur during the next decade".
Alas the damage had been done and the chub and barbel decided that the new open plan habitat was not at all to their liking and dropped back downstream.

That policy has now been reversed of course, and woody debris is considered a good thing.... http://www.staffs-wildlife.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/Managing Woody Debris.pdf

I have always been a fan of woody features in the river and the more cover our fish can make use of to escape predation the better...or so I thought.
The very same meadow that was rendered fishless 20 years ago is now unfishable due to the current policy of leaving wood where it falls.

dave-taylor-albums-dropbox-picture5553-2015-03-22-09-28-24.jpg




Threads such as this remind me that a lot of my barbel fishing is as pre concieved as puddle chucking...trying to hook a species stocked by man from an enviroment created by man.

Also, the cracked willows that have fallen into the river in the photo have done so as a direct result of bad, sometimes lazy erratic operation of the upstream weir which has erroded the bank and undermined the roots. That stretch of river is termed a natural channel...whose kidding who?
In fairness to the weir keeper it can sometimes be the fault of another weir further upstream that has decided to let all the backed up water go at once leaving him little option. There have been many occasions when fishing into dark on a low ledge that the weir has been opened right up and the rising levels have forced a speedy retreat!
This type of weir operation has also a habit of pulling bankside shrubs and bushes that have attached debris clean out of the bank.
Weirs eh,... as I've mentioned on river reports, ...stick of dynamite comes to mind, as documenting and reporting back to the EA has zero effect!
 
Lawrence Breakspear said:
One thing we dont wont to do is trust the EA on so called flood defense, back in the 90's one of the most prolific stretches of the Teme was Cotheridge, a home of some truly wonderful barbel, a part of the river that was full of character, overhanging willows, deep pools, narrows, deep bends, it was barbel heaven......then the NRA vandals turned up, within a week overhanging willows had been up rooted or chopped down, bullrush and reeds pulled up, sunken trees (snags removed), it was like a nuclear bomb had gone off, with the epicenter being that short stretch of river, all in the name of flood defence, the following year I spoke to the farmer who farmed the land downstream of Cotheridge and in all the time his family had farmed the land they never lost crops or livestock to floods, the year after the so called flood defence teams he suffered the worst floods of his land in living memory......so could they, the EA in their wisdom consider taking out Powick weir in the interests of flood defence, never say never is what I say....
Click to expand...

I am very much with you on that one Lawrence ,the EA have carried out a number of acts of legalised vandalism particularly on smaller rivers in my locality , turning some of them in to nothing much more than drainage ditches . In particular they seem to have totally lost the understanding of the old way of retaining water meadows to allow rivers to flood naturally . It is always hard to decide who to ally with when trying to work out what is best for our riverine environment whether it be flora or fauna . One thing I have noticed of late is that due to lack of funding the EA have neglected to see through some of their river management projects and mother nature has started to right things on her own .
 
David Gauntlett said:
Damian, I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say in your post. Firstly, these poor people WERE told that the terrible flooding of 2009 was a 'Once in a hundred years event'. Now obviously, that doesn't mean that the next such event will come exactly one hundred years to the day from that first....but surely you are not trying to claim that SIX years is an acceptable fraction of the one hundred years statement of expectation?

Secondly, we are constantly being told that global warming, or any of the pseudonyms that fact now goes under, is causing massive changes, increasingly unpredictable world weather events etc. On a regular basis we are seeing horrific footage of floods, earth slides, droughts, unprecedented storms....you name it, the world is seeing record breaking levels of it. This, and the unpredictable nature of it, the increasing frequency of it, is a constant source of dismay and discussion on TV and radio news channels and dedicated documentaries. And that all started happening at least fifteen years ago.

So, bearing that in mind, I don't think I am wrong or out of order when I suggest that the new flood defenses WERE a shining example of "poor planning and consequent design" as you put it. You say "The level of rainfall that fell was obviously something that was not predicted because it was something seemingly impossible to predict using models based on past events given records going back 220 odd years."

Well, yes, we know that...but as I say, we have been warned for many years that the world weather patterns are changing, getting far worse, less predictable, to expect them to steadily get worse....and so on, so what the hell is the point of "Using models based on past events given records going back 220 odd years?" I think that could reasonably be labeled as 'poor planning', don't you? If I were a grumpy old curmudgeon, I might even go as far as labeling it criminally incompetent! :D:D

Finally, your last sentence reads "The defences that were built were astonishing in their effectiveness at preventing something quite beyond what I witnessed on Sunday, and for that, I think you will find that most, in Keswick anyway, will agree." Again, you leave me speechless...(A) because I am not 100% certain what that actually means in English. But, either way, (B) Keswick was flooded! I think actually, this particular resident of Keswick would rather agree with me, and I quote....

Keswick resident Rich Gale, who experienced previous floods in 2005 and 2009, said he had felt "reasonably safe" since the Environment Agency extended the town's flood defence wall and he added protection to his own home.
But he said: "We stayed in our house because after the 2009 flood we bought flood defences for our home so we thought we'd better stay in and try and mop up any leaks that come in, but we just got overwhelmed and we ended up leaving our house."

Hmmmm. It seems from that quote that not only were the new defenses inadequate, but the combination of those and his own newly installed house defenses couldn't cope. They may in Keswick have alleviated the severity of the flood somewhat, but many houses were still inundated there, and elsewhere in the area it was plain from the TV newscasts that the extent of it was horrific. There is not a lot of point in telling someone who's house is under two or three feet of water that 'It would have been a lot worse but for the new defenses!'

Cheers, Dave.
Click to expand...


Sorry David, I haven't really got the time to reply in full, but needless to say, unless you were actually there, it is very difficult to ask you to understand how good a job those defences did at holding back the volume of water that fell throughout Saturday, and you have to appreciate that in order to talk of the failure of the design and construction of said defences I'm afraid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top