• 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...

Upper Thames region.

Colin Gordon

No Longer a Member
Not pleasant reading but maybe of interest to some:





Secretary’s report to 2010 AGM. Upper Thames Fisheries Consultative.


Dear friends,

I debated long and hard whether to write a report at all this year. This indecision on my part reflected my pessimism about the future of angling in our area – and with this a strong feeling that my over long tenure as UTFC secretary ought to come to an end. However, in the hope that someone will take over my job I will tell it how I see it.

Sadly, I think we have lost every battle that I really care about.

River Windrush
Personally, I can’t bear to look at the lower Windrush these days. The EA acknowledges that the river loses up to 1/3 of its flow between Witney and the Thames, but says the matter is closed. No further research, let alone action is contemplated. Fly hatches are poor, turbidity is perpetual and the river is infested with signal crayfish. The specimen roach and dace for which the river was famous seem to have disappeared – almost certainly due to cormorant predation – and the river has lost its barbel too. As for grayling in the lower river – they are a distant memory. Higher up the river, remnant populations hang on. Strangely, wild brown trout recruitment is reasonably good, though the outsize trout the river used to produce do not show, probably because the millions of minnows they used to eat aren’t there!

River Evenlode
The Evenlode was once my winter “banker”. I could catch lovely roach on almost any day of the year. This too appears to be a thing of the past. Again, turbidity is perpetual. Some friends tell me that they still catch specimen roach, chub and perch, but the EA’s survey results have been very depressing. The gudgeon have gone – and, I think, the minnows too! I attended a presentation by Tom Sherwood of the EA at Ascott u Wychwood on the state of the Evenlode. I think this was a valuable occasion and I would like to see the EA give similar presentations on other West Area rivers, perhaps to this forum.

River Cherwell
On my favourite piece of the Cherwell I never saw another angler last winter. That was great as I am notably antisocial, especially when fishing. Unfortunately, other anglers had not deserted the stretch for no reason. The barbel, which were once plentiful, have gone. The chub were for many years never particularly large – a four pounder was a very good fish. Later we saw the chub decline in numbers but pack on weight and even I caught a six pounder. Sadly, the numbers of chub now seem to be thinning out further and as the old big fish die I wonder what will replace them.

River Kennet
I have wonderful memories of Kennet days, fly fishing days at the Wilderness and coarse fishing days at Rainsford and Upper Benyons and many more. Alas on the Kennet as elsewhere the scene is depressing. Even above the canal confluence the river is more turbid than it was and the fly hatches are poor. Below the canal confluence the river is perpetually turbid, infested with signals and the vast shoals of chub, roach and barbel that we once encountered simply don’t exist. I know there is an expensive plan to re-channel part of the middle Kennet at Copse Lock, separating river and canal. I am not a fan! A great deal of money would be spent to bring benefit to 2 estates – the Craven and Sutton estates while the benefit to the rest of the river would be zero. The Italians have a wonderful phrase: “Cathedrals in the desert” – expensive projects that bring little benefit. This re-channelling of the Kennet merits that description. The UTFC (David Reinger and Richard Knowles) continues to attend meetings of the Kennet Fap group. The Kennet has a plethora of groups which meet with the EA. I think we all wonder how real is the progress made.

I can go on and on, but it is too depressing. The barbel have disappeared from the Thames; the Glyme is always the colour of mud; the Coln – once rated alongside the Hampshire chalk streams – has lost its fly – and, where I fish, its ranunculus and grayling too! If there are any bright spots for fishing in this area I can’t see them. In the past year we have had a number of tussles with the EA about flood defence work about which we have not been consulted. David Cameron has said that if he wins the election landowners would have a greater say in flood defence work. That is not an appealing prospect. Whoever wins there must be real doubt that the EA will exist in current form in five years time. Sadly, I am pessimistic that any restructuring will be for the better.

Yes, I am a sad and angry old man. When I became UTFC secretary the fishing in all of our rivers in this area was better than it is now – and that is because our rivers were better fisheries and more diverse ecosystems. Chemical water quality as narrowly defined and measured by the EA (BOD, SS and Ammonia) has not got worse. Indeed it is probably better. However, the impact of phosphates and trace pesticides are much less clear. I strongly suspect, but cannot prove, that invertebrates – the key to the food chain – are very sensitive to both.

What has undoubtedly impacted on our fisheries in the past 20 years is predation. Cormorants, signal crayfish and otters have all had an impact. We know that cormorants ravage silver fish stocks – and can eat quite large fish. We know that signal crayfish hammer slow moving invertebrates. We suspect they also aggravate turbidity problems. Finally, otters eat large fish. They can’t eat eels because there aren’t any and, for whatever reason, poor recruitment means small fish don’t grow to replace the big ones that get eaten.

I would like to end on a positive note, but frankly I can’t. Join the Angling Trust and enjoy what remains of your fishing while you can. I hope our rivers will bounce back, but I am not betting on it.

Richard Knowles

28th April 2010.
 
Surely the EA Fisheries department are 'lawfully' duty bound to Maintain, Improve and Develope fisheries! Wot a cop out!
 
Last edited:
Surely the EA Fisheries department are 'lawfully' duty bound to Maintain, Improve and Develope fisheries! Wot a cop out!

Like any other government department they will put a lot of spin on it to "prove " they are meeting their obligations. Some suggest the EA are better than nothing but reading this horrific dialogue makes you wonder. Sadly, it is no surprise to those of us familiar with the upper Thames region.
 
Well... they are still taking 'our' money and being funded by government. As you know, if indigeonous species of fish, macro invertebrates etc and the 'water' disappear, the EA would be liable.
 
We had the same Knowles report posted here a year ago, I remember.

The same " predation is the cause" refrain yet again....

No. Only a minor cause, a mere mopping up of already crashed and presently crashing fish populations that crashed for reasons linked to man - farmers and their unsustainable practices, roads and their drivers, we frequent bathers, car-washers, lawn-waterers and won't take No for an answer want-it-nowers.

Interesting to read that brown trout are prospering on the Windrush. They are prospering once more on other rivers, the fish now occupying stretches of river well downstream of their former range, cleaner water allowing them to move down into once coarse-fish-only territory.

But this almost obsessive scapegoating of predators...

To my mind, it's rather like blaming the crows or magpies you see picking over a piece of roadkill for the death of the car-struck and-flattened victim.

Sorry, fellas, but a few bits of predatory feather and fur blown away will not solve the problem, will not not bring the fish back.
 
A lot of local and much wiser anglers than me, claim it to be the handy work of the EA after a dredging exercise in the mid to late 90's broke up a lot of chalk up on the bed, cleared all the weed etc.

Apparently to stop flooding...it didn't work

flood.jpg




Abstraction is a concern....but has stopped yeah right, it has been very low for a few years now, the crayfish have taken over too.

cameron.jpg


"Go ahead old boy do your worst to the Windrush, I am only the MP for the area no one will notice"

"Right you are guv more abstraction and otters it is"
 
Unfortunately much of what Richard Knowles writes about is becoming increasingly and rapidly evident on the Teme.
 
Yes, and I knew a life-long and very successful Teme salmon-fisher who died in his 70s ten years ago, a fine fisher and country man, who, to the point of boring even me, a sponge for good, old fishing tales and lore, was always saying how the river was effed once it got barbel..............
 
Very good run of salmon on the Teme now. Went to a talk last year given by Environment Agency Fisheries Technical Specialist Chris Bainger who said the EA are close to signing off the reintroduction and maintenance of salmon on the Teme as "job done".

Perhaps in part due to the decline in the barbel...? :).
 
All quotes are taken from a very typical Paul Boote post:


"We had the same Knowles report posted here a year ago, I remember."

Very true Paul, though at the time of posting it I was unaware but a subsiquent phone conversation enlightened me to this fact. Equally pertinent now as when posted first time around, I'd say.


"The same " predation is the cause" refrain yet again...."

Yeah right, as if you would!


"No. Only a minor cause, a mere mopping up of already crashed and presently crashing fish populations that crashed for reasons linked to man - farmers and their unsustainable practices, roads and their drivers, we frequent bathers, car-washers, lawn-waterers and won't take No for an answer want-it-nowers."

The reasons you state are all very true and what exactly is wrong with wanting action and wanting it now?!!


"Interesting to read that brown trout are prospering on the Windrush. They are prospering once more on other rivers, the fish now occupying stretches of river well downstream of their former range, cleaner water allowing them to move down into once coarse-fish-only territory."

Paul, I think a re-read is in order, as "prospering" they ain't!
A cyclical shift in the dominant species is to be expected but what's happening is trout numbers ARE dropping slightly and the coarse fish population is plummeting. So a huge void is now ever apparent.


"But this almost obsessive scapegoating of predators..."

Predator scapegoating, only in your eyes. A mention of Cormorants (which are problematic), is hardly "scapegoating" or am I being blinkered???
Thinking about it further, I'd say you are so preoccupied with championing the cause of the oppressed predator, the chances of you offering a reasoned opinion are less than negligible.


"To my mind, it's rather like blaming the crows or magpies you see picking over a piece of roadkill for the death of the car-struck and-flattened victim."

Yes, predators in the case of the rivers are not the primary cause of their demise but when a predator is being displaced due inpart as a result of its natural habitat being raped, why should another environment be left to pay the price and if this occurs should we say nothing in defence of the newly invaded environment?


"Sorry, fellas, but a few bits of predatory feather and fur blown away will not solve the problem, will not not bring the fish back."

And who said it would?
 
Last edited:
Carry on, Colin.

I am probably not the only one here who is beginning to think that you are a serial something....
 
Very good run of salmon on the Teme now. Went to a talk last year given by Environment Agency Fisheries Technical Specialist Chris Bainger who said the EA are close to signing off the reintroduction and maintenance of salmon on the Teme as "job done".

Perhaps in part due to the decline in the barbel...? :).

Perhaps the resurgence in Thames/Kennet salmon is due in part to the downturn in barbel numbers, thenagain perhaps not!
Taken from an EA newsletter:

In March 2011 the Environment Agency carried
out its last official salmon release into the
Thames catchment when it released 2,000
salmon smolts into the River Kennet between
Newbury and Hungerford. The first releases had
been in 1975 with fish stocked into the Thames
at Richmond, and to the River Eye. Through the
1980s and 1990s the stocking of juvenile
salmon into nursery habitat produced quite
large returns of adult fish to the river,
culminating in at least 330 adult salmon in 1993.
Since that time returns have declined, and in
recent years dwindled to generally less than 10
fish a year, some of these were strays from
other rivers (identified by genetic studies) rather
than fish that were released.
Salmon parr
The 2004 Salmon Action Plan set a goal of
encouraging returning salmon to reach
spawning grounds in the Kennet and breed
successfully, but despite successes with almost
all the targets in the Plan, one elusive goal
remained establishing a breeding population.
With little prospect of adult numbers increasing,
it was decided to stop the release of juvenile
salmon into the Thames. This does not mean
that the Salmon Rehabilitation Scheme has
stopped work, nor has the aim of restoring a self
sustaining salmon population been dropped.
Work will continue on salmon in the Thames,
but this will be broadened to include sea trout
too. In 2011 the Environment Agency will be
consulting on a Sea Trout and Salmon
Catchment Summary for the Thames which will
include work to improve both species within the
Thames Catchment. The Water Framework
Directive will also deliver improvements to all
the rivers in the Thames through Actions in the
River Basin Plan that will improve stocks of all
fish species and hopefully encourage
populations of sea trout and salmon to flourish.
 
Carry on, Colin.

I am probably not the only one here who is beginning to think that you are a serial something....

And what, am I supposed to be upset or something, that someone who doesn't know me has formed an opinion on me...... Oh well **** happens.
 
Carry on, Colin.

I am probably not the only one here who is beginning to think that you are a serial something....

Seems to me a pretty apt description of your good self Paul.

" We had the same Knowles report posted here a year ago, I remember."

Always it seems keen to attempt to ridicule someone who posts on a subject previously spoken about by you or somebody else.

I just don't get you, i can't figure you out ! you have got one hell of a chip on your shoulder - where does it come from ?

Ian Grant.... from Slough :)
 
Seems to me a pretty apt description of your good self Paul.

" We had the same Knowles report posted here a year ago, I remember."

Always it seems keen to attempt to ridicule someone who posts on a subject previously spoken about by you or somebody else.

I just don't get you, i can't figure you out ! you have got one hell of a chip on your shoulder - where does it come from ?

Ian Grant.... from Slough :)



Once again, my deepest condolences for Slough, Ian. I quite understand...
 
A lot of local and much wiser anglers than me, claim it to be the handy work of the EA after a dredging exercise in the mid to late 90's broke up a lot of chalk up on the bed, cleared all the weed etc.

Apparently to stop flooding...it didn't work

flood.jpg




Abstraction is a concern....but has stopped yeah right, it has been very low for a few years now, the crayfish have taken over too.

cameron.jpg


"Go ahead old boy do your worst to the Windrush, I am only the MP for the area no one will notice"

"Right you are guv more abstraction and otters it is"



Yes, what we can't sell off, we'll rip up.



This 'greenest government ever' is the greatest threat yet to our environment

The coalition is preparing to bin Britain's climate change targets. After all, ministers have corporate sponsors to take care of

George Monbiot

guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 May 2011 20.30 BST


Goodbye Cameron the Conciliator, hello Cameron the Destroyer. Empowered by last week's elections, the prime minister knows that he can get away with almost anything. Voters failed to punish him for attempting to dismantle the NHS and for ripping up his promise to protect frontline services. What can't he now do?

His next target is the environment. Within the following two weeks – probably on 16 May – the cabinet will decide whether or not to drop its commitment to prevent runaway climate change.

When the 2008 Climate Change Act was being debated, both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats called for it to be strengthened. David Cameron argued its targets for cutting carbon should be set not by politicians but by a group of experts, now called the Committee on Climate Change. In 2006 he insisted that this body should "set and enforce these targets, not merely monitor them as the government is proposing". The timetable for reducing greenhouse gases, he said, should be "free of political interference". The reason, he explained in another article, was to prevent governments from putting "short-term electoral considerations above the long-term interests of the country and the planet".

The act was passed but – to Cameron's professed disappointment – it allowed the government to overrule the five-yearly carbon budgets proposed by the committee. It did, however, set a legally binding overall target: an 80% cut by 2050. Governments could reduce their own commitments only by dumping them on their successors. The 80% target fell short of what the Liberal Democrat Chris Huhne, who is now secretary of state for energy and climate change, demanded. In an article for the Guardian in 2007, he announced that the Lib Dems "want no less than a zero-carbon Britain by 2050".

Now, as Friends of the Earth has discovered, the coalition could be about to rip up its commitments. The Treasury, the Department for Transport and the business department (run by the Lib Dem Vince Cable) have been lobbying within government to overturn the committee's advice that, to stay on target, carbon should be cut by 60% by 2030. So much for George Osborne's promise in 2009 that "under a Conservative government, the Treasury will no longer be the cuckoo in the Whitehall nest when it comes to climate change".

Other departments, including Huhne's, have been trying to defend the target. The decision has already been delayed several times: it now looks as if the showdown will take place at the meeting of the cabinet's economic affairs committee on Monday. If Osborne and Cable win, this will be the first time the climate targets have been rejected. It would set a disastrous precedent: the parties in power today will be unable to hold future governments to account if they too let the schedule slip.

Friends of the Earth argues that if the Treasury and the business department win, Huhne must resign. To stay on under those circumstances would be to lose all remaining credibility. The central purpose of his department, and of his career in government, is to enforce the act.

But this is just the beginning of the coalition's assault on the environment. The government's Red Tape Challenge presents, on paper at least, the widest-ranging threat to environmental protection since the enclosure acts. Suddenly it is asking whether environmental legislation – yes, all of it – should be "scrapped altogether". Listed as negotiable are the entire Climate Change Act, the clean air acts, the rules governing ozone-depleting chemicals, the Town and Country Planning Act, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, the acts establishing national parks (and therefore the parks themselves), the rules enforcing energy efficiency, governing hazardous waste, preventing litter and dog-fouling: all the regulations, grand and petty, that protect us from other people's greed and selfishness.

It's a breathtaking, astonishing initiative, and the little protest it has generated testifies to how punchdrunk this country has become as the government pummels every protection our forebears worked so hard to win, everything that defends us from a feral, unregulated market.

The point of the Red Tape Challenge is not to scrap all this legislation but to shake the bolts looser. The government is in the process of resetting the political boundaries so that the outrageous propositions it makes in future seem unexceptional. The Tory frontbench is composed of very clever, calculating people. They know just what their sponsors in the corporate class expect of them, and just what they have to do to soften us up for the next assault.

They will not be unaware of the way the wind is blowing on the frontline of British environmental conflict. The regions in which big renewable power plants are due to be installed are in full-scale political revolt. The anger is directed not so much against the wind turbines as against the associated infrastructure. Here in Montgomeryshire, for instance, the turbines divide the community; the powerlines and substations unite it – in horror and revulsion. At the end of April 2,000 people (a remarkable number in this sparsely populated region) gathered to hear their Tory MP Glyn Davies denounce the current plans. Two weeks later the Tories won the Welsh assembly seat on a major swing. I've recently returned from the Scottish Highlands, where the upgrade to the Beauly-Denny powerline is provoking similar reactions.

Three conclusions seem obvious. Unless the new powerlines are buried, the renewables programme will stall: underground cables must become a firm green demand, though they will add significantly to the cost. Even so, it's now clear that there's a limit to how much more renewable power can be deployed before it clatters into a mountain of public opposition. This is one of the reasons why we should start considering other options for decarbonising the electricity supply: especially new nuclear technologies such as thorium, integral fast reactors or travelling wave reactors.

Until we in the environment movement decide how we're going to resolve these conflicts, the government needs only sit back and watch us tear ourselves apart, as scenery goes head-to-head with carbon. Cynical ministers know that there are few votes to be lost, and plenty to be gained, by abandoning these plans.

This is a perilous moment, at which greens could easily find themselves outmanouvred by a ruthless government. Cameron is the embodiment of a ruling culture detached from the fears and fortunes of those it dominates, that preaches responsibility but practises as little as it can get away with, that will uproot any tree that shelters us from the corporate gale. The "greenest government ever" presents the greatest ever threat to our environment. What are we going to do about it?
 
Back
Top