• 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...

Wye update

Paul Bullinger

Paul Bullinger

Senior Member & Supporter
Hi,
I am a newbie to BFW, so please be kind to me!
I am in my 70's. I have been an angler from the age of 7 when my fishing uncle made me a greenheart rod.
I class myself a pleasure angler.
Every year for the last 40 years me and my childhood friends spend a week fishing for barbel.
We started fishing the Hampshire Avon and, after many years trying various locations, ended up, about 15 years ago fishing the Wye.
We have just returned from our 2021 trip.
It was depressing. Forget the lack of fish (chub excluded) it was the poor state of this once magnificent river.
We all know the problems of pollution, extraction and climate change, but to see swans grubbing around vainly trying to find weed to eat and witnessing brown sludge covering the riverbed, was just soul destroying.
There were 7 of us fishing this past week and managed just 26 barbel between us. Its not the lack of fish caught, we are all "grown ups" and know you can't always catch large numbers, but it was the state of the river that was quite sad.
Finally, (sorry this is a rant) I met a lovely lady at Carrots who was walking her 2 dogs and we got chatting. She has lived in the area all her life and she was near to tears when she described the death, as she called it, of the Wye. She has written to her MP, the Water Companies, the NFU etc. All letters ignored.
So, what can individuals do? Is there a solution or should we just accept the decline and demise of this once mighty river?
Not a cheery first post but needed to do it!
 
As somebody who has fished both rivers I share your pain. I fished the BA extensively for roach and for barbel in its glory years - wonderful fishing.

However the issues on the B A appear rather different to those on the Wye.

Iremember having a long conversation with Martin Bowler just after he had moved down to live near the B Avon and he was adamant that there were so many barbel there that the otter predation would have little impact…..how wrong he was. The other big issue on the BA is water abstraction; a well known local angler told me only last week that he reckons the upper and middle river has halved in size in the last 25 years !

If you think the Wye coarse fishing is in decline, check out what the salmon anglers say about the situation…….the reduction in their catches is absolutely catastrophic. It is utterly unacceptable that only now are the ‘powers that be ‘ starting to realise what has happened to the river.

The biggest issue it whether these declines are irreversible……..

As far as angling motivation goes; for me it is about being realistic and managing my expectations. I’m currently fishing the Thames and if I catch any barbel this season I will be happy.
 
Paul Bullinger said:
Hi,
I am a newbie to BFW, so please be kind to me!
I am in my 70's. I have been an angler from the age of 7 when my fishing uncle made me a greenheart rod.
I class myself a pleasure angler.
Every year for the last 40 years me and my childhood friends spend a week fishing for barbel.
We started fishing the Hampshire Avon and, after many years trying various locations, ended up, about 15 years ago fishing the Wye.
We have just returned from our 2021 trip.
It was depressing. Forget the lack of fish (chub excluded) it was the poor state of this once magnificent river.
We all know the problems of pollution, extraction and climate change, but to see swans grubbing around vainly trying to find weed to eat and witnessing brown sludge covering the riverbed, was just soul destroying.
There were 7 of us fishing this past week and managed just 26 barbel between us. Its not the lack of fish caught, we are all "grown ups" and know you can't always catch large numbers, but it was the state of the river that was quite sad.
Finally, (sorry this is a rant) I met a lovely lady at Carrots who was walking her 2 dogs and we got chatting. She has lived in the area all her life and she was near to tears when she described the death, as she called it, of the Wye. She has written to her MP, the Water Companies, the NFU etc. All letters ignored.
So, what can individuals do? Is there a solution or should we just accept the decline and demise of this once mighty river?
Not a cheery first post but needed to do it!
Click to expand...
Hi Paul
There are a lot of people working hard to get something done. There were protesters at the Welsh Parliament last week, headed up by the Wild Swimmer - Angela Jones (?) highlighting the issues. It was on BBC news. The Rivercide documentary is getting quite a lot of coverage. There are lots of very intelligent and driven people behind the scenes spending hours and hours meticulously collecting data, preparing detailed scientific reports and reporting it to the relevant Authorities as well as pushing organizations like the NFU. From what I see there is some momentum with a lot of people who can see what's happening to the Wye( not just anglers), doing what they can, but they're dealing with politicians and bureaucrats and greedy people whose only interest is £££ and herein lies the problem and the challenge as the clock is most definitely ticking.
 
From what I've heard a large part of the problem is the proliferation of organic chicken farming and the run off of the inevitable waste polluting the water.
 
Thank you to all of you who have responded to my earlier (well intended) rant about the Wye! I am a big believer in "getting things off your chest" and my lovely wife gets fed up with being the recipient of my moans, so thank goodness for this forum!
On a more serious note, the phrase "managing expectations " was used by Andy, Terry and Bob and I guess, sadly, that will be the new "norm".
I know one of the local bailiffs on the Wye and on the ceiling of his riverside Shepherds Hut, written in pencil are salmon catches from the 1960's. In one season, 374 salmon caught from one beat!!!
I am grateful that I have experienced a "golden era" of fishing, but would love it if my 3 year old grandson could also enjoy such delights.
 
Paul Collins said:
From what I've heard a large part of the problem is the proliferation of organic chicken farming and the run off of the inevitable waste polluting the water.
Click to expand...
I'm no expert but yes i believe this is a major issue. A lot of the sheds being built on the flood plain too.
I was speaking to an expert on this last week and he believes there is a solution which is simple - producers being responsible for the waste they produce. I run a business and if we create oily rags it is treated as hazardous waste, as are spent aerosols. I have to segregate these and pay a small fortune to have them disposed of by a specialist waste management company who are a licensed carrier. It's part of the cost of doing business.
If Poultry farms had to be responsible and do something similar or convert it into pellets, install an anaerobic digester or whatever stopped it being stockpiled or spread on the fields then he believes this would be a big first step. If it meant a few pence on a pound of chicken would the consumer notice or care, and if they did simply eat less chicken. But then I've heard 75% of what they produce is exported, so our countryside being destroyed for the benefit of the rest of the world. Sounds about right.
 
Paul Bullinger said:
Thank you to all of you who have responded to my earlier (well intended) rant about the Wye! I am a big believer in "getting things off your chest" and my lovely wife gets fed up with being the recipient of my moans, so thank goodness for this forum!
On a more serious note, the phrase "managing expectations " was used by Andy, Terry and Bob and I guess, sadly, that will be the new "norm".
I know one of the local bailiffs on the Wye and on the ceiling of his riverside Shepherds Hut, written in pencil are salmon catches from the 1960's. In one season, 374 salmon caught from one beat!!!
I am grateful that I have experienced a "golden era" of fishing, but would love it if my 3 year old grandson could also enjoy such delights.
Click to expand...
Things can and do get better. My nearest River is the Tees, so we know a thing or two about pollution.
Upstream of the barrage it is a healthy and beautiful river which if the seals weren't in reisdence at the barrage, would have a tremendous run of salmon. But that's a whole different story....
 
Paul Richardson said:
I'm no expert but yes i believe this is a major issue. A lot of the sheds being built on the flood plain too.
I was speaking to an expert on this last week and he believes there is a solution which is simple - producers being responsible for the waste they produce. I run a business and if we create oily rags it is treated as hazardous waste, as are spent aerosols. I have to segregate these and pay a small fortune to have them disposed of by a specialist waste management company who are a licensed carrier. It's part of the cost of doing business.
If Poultry farms had to be responsible and do something similar or convert it into pellets, install an anaerobic digester or whatever stopped it being stockpiled or spread on the fields then he believes this would be a big first step. If it meant a few pence on a pound of chicken would the consumer notice or care, and if they did simply eat less chicken. But then I've heard 75% of what they produce is exported, so our countryside being destroyed for the benefit of the rest of the world. Sounds about right.
Click to expand...
The problem is the proliferation of intensive poultry units (IPU) that are located in the wrong part of the world to enable the manures which are produced to be applied to farmland where there is an agronomic demand for the nutrients in the manures, ideally in the lowland arable east where there is significantly less rainfall and less livestock farming.

Yes the manure can be put through an AD unit, but said AD unit won't run efficiently or generate worthwhile amounts of energy on manures alone, they need to be supplemented with crops such as maize and intensively grown high metabolic energy silage, neither are suitable crops for the headwaters of the Wye and the issue of growing energy crops is a big environmental issue in its own right. Even then, you still have the same problems with what to do with the AD digestate, the AD process doesn't remove phosphate which is the problematic nutrient. Pelleting is another option - but then where do the high phosphate pellets go? Like digestate it is simply uneconomic to export to the productive lowland farmland where it can be utilised.

The only long-term solution is for these IPUS to be relocated elsewhere. I don't see this happening anytime soon, the Welsh Assembly and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) are next to useless.

It is a terrible example of regulatory failure. Sadly knowing how phosphate behaves in the soil, how it gets built-up by manure applications, and the way it transfers to surface waters (soil wash, soil erosion usually) I cannot envisage a situation where things to do get dramatically worse in the next few years.
 
I would also add that next time you hear a politician talking about 'slashing red tape' or 'bureaucracy' just remind yourself that what is happening on the Wye is what can happen when that occurs.

"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows" R.H Tawney.
 
Joe Winstanley said:
The problem is the proliferation of intensive poultry units (IPU) that are located in the wrong part of the world to enable the manures which are produced to be applied to farmland where there is an agronomic demand for the nutrients in the manures, ideally in the lowland arable east where there is significantly less rainfall and less livestock farming.

Yes the manure can be put through an AD unit, but said AD unit won't run efficiently or generate worthwhile amounts of energy on manures alone, they need to be supplemented with crops such as maize and intensively grown high metabolic energy silage, neither are suitable crops for the headwaters of the Wye and the issue of growing energy crops is a big environmental issue in its own right. Even then, you still have the same problems with what to do with the AD digestate, the AD process doesn't remove phosphate which is the problematic nutrient. Pelleting is another option - but then where do the high phosphate pellets go? Like digestate it is simply uneconomic to export to the productive lowland farmland where it can be utilised.

The only long-term solution is for these IPUS to be relocated elsewhere. I don't see this happening anytime soon, the Welsh Assembly and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) are next to useless.

It is a terrible example of regulatory failure. Sadly knowing how phosphate behaves in the soil, how it gets built-up by manure applications, and the way it transfers to surface waters (soil wash, soil erosion usually) I cannot envisage a situation where things to do get dramatically worse in the next few years.
Click to expand...
Hi Joe - as always fascinating. I agree with his point which is accountability. Other industries have to, by law, manage their waste in a responsible manner. Chicken poo is a waste product, surely?
As I said I'm no expert, but if the manure is indeed ' hazardous waste' ( and I think it is increasingly acknowledged that it is for the Wye ecosystem) then why can't the responsible disposal be mandatory and the costs to do this be part of the business model? I guess this would have to be proven and legislation created/amended to accommodate this but it would be a start.
If these extra costs eat into profit margins and make the sheds economically nonviable and/ or deter more investment then that has to be a result.
I think your point about being in the wrong place is interesting. So if they can get away with it in the Wye valley, and that model is scalable then presumably it could be "coming to a river near you soon...?"
 
Joe Winstanley said:
The problem is the proliferation of intensive poultry units (IPU) that are located in the wrong part of the world to enable the manures which are produced to be applied to farmland where there is an agronomic demand for the nutrients in the manures, ideally in the lowland arable east where there is significantly less rainfall and less livestock farming.

Yes the manure can be put through an AD unit, but said AD unit won't run efficiently or generate worthwhile amounts of energy on manures alone, they need to be supplemented with crops such as maize and intensively grown high metabolic energy silage, neither are suitable crops for the headwaters of the Wye and the issue of growing energy crops is a big environmental issue in its own right. Even then, you still have the same problems with what to do with the AD digestate, the AD process doesn't remove phosphate which is the problematic nutrient. Pelleting is another option - but then where do the high phosphate pellets go? Like digestate it is simply uneconomic to export to the productive lowland farmland where it can be utilised.

The only long-term solution is for these IPUS to be relocated elsewhere. I don't see this happening anytime soon, the Welsh Assembly and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) are next to useless.

It is a terrible example of regulatory failure. Sadly knowing how phosphate behaves in the soil, how it gets built-up by manure applications, and the way it transfers to surface waters (soil wash, soil erosion usually) I cannot envisage a situation where things to do get dramatically worse in the next few years.
Click to expand...
Edit: meant to write: I cannot envisage a situation where things to do not get dramatically worse in the next few years.
 
Paul Richardson said:
Hi Joe - as always fascinating. I agree with his point which is accountability. Other industries have to, by law, manage their waste in a responsible manner. Chicken poo is a waste product, surely?
As I said I'm no expert, but if the manure is indeed ' hazardous waste' ( and I think it is increasingly acknowledged that it is for the Wye ecosystem) then why can't the responsible disposal be mandatory and the costs to do this be part of the business model? I guess this would have to be proven and legislation created/amended to accommodate this but it would be a start.
If these extra costs eat into profit margins and make the sheds economically nonviable and/ or deter more investment then that has to be a result.
I think your point about being in the wrong place is interesting. So if they can get away with it in the Wye valley, and that model is scalable then presumably it could be "coming to a river near you soon...?"
Click to expand...
It is a waste product in one sense. But in another, in the right situation, it is a valuable resource.

I do agree with your broader point, and if the 'polluter pays' principle had been adhered to by Powys County Council and NRW, and due diligence had been undertaken by NRW then this potential issue would have been identified at a very early stage.

I do have some sympathy for the farmers involved. Not one of them has ever set out to pollute the Wye and they have acted within the law at all times, and none of them would have any inkling of the wider issue, but they have been badly let down by the farming consultants who have advised them (who really should have had sight of the bigger picture) and the planners who approved their applications for IPU's.

I think given the widespread regulatory failure of the agencies who should have had a handle on the bigger picture and the environmental implications there is a compelling case for Powys CC and NRW to subsidise the costs of transporting phosphate out of the Upper Wye catchment, for an interim period say 10-years, after which all the costs have to be met by the producer. That should give sufficient time for the industry to relocate elsewhere to areas where the impact is significantly lower.

One point you made about export is a salient one. Quite a bit of a poultry meat produced ends up in overseas markets such as China. Something are Govt seems keen to do more off, thus illustrating the complete disconnect in Govt policies for overseas trade and the environment. Should our rivers bare the externalised costs of cheap food in places like China?

On a national level, the elephant in the room is the fact that in the UK we only produce about 61% of the food we produce. The rest is imported and every food import brings nutrients that have to be utilised once they've through the sewage treatment plants. Incrementally therefore the phosphate reserves across the country are all slowly building up - national eutrophication if you like. There are simply too many of us on this small island.
 
Whilst I was perch fishing the Wye in Ross Town the other day a chap came behind me and enquired about pike fishing.

We had a general chat and he revealed he worked for a provider for Welsh Water We had quite a chat..
From the Rivercide doc, which he said was a real embarrassment to the Company, through the Chicken farm debate and on

However he volunteered that things are far worse in relation to dumping of raw sewerage at WW than people realise. His exact words were.

" If I revealed what's really going in it would cause an outrage"

Now, I believe WW is a not for profit organisation.

So it says all you need to know about those companies owned partly or mainly by Canadian, Australian, Chinese, etc Shareholders.

Not looking good But I was not surprised. Sad
 
I agree with all of the comments above and what I would like to understand is why fishing and rivers were better sometime in the recent past? Was it because we took less water as the population was smaller? It wasn’t because pollution was lower (sewage treatment works were badly in need of investment) and many livestock farms just let waste enter rivers (it’s how they had operated for decades). Between 1973 and 1989 the water authorities’ pollution control and trade effluent teams were tiny so there was very little regulation - but fishing seemed to be better. Is the issue climate change? Politicians have always been fairly useless so this can’t be the reason. I believe it’s the water volume that is a major factor - we take too much water from the environment and climate change is making the problem worse. A properly researched investigation to compare historical conditions to the situation now would be really useful and perhaps the Angling Trust could do it.
 
Rob Moore said:
I agree with all of the comments above and what I would like to understand is why fishing and rivers were better sometime in the recent past? Was it because we took less water as the population was smaller? It wasn’t because pollution was lower (sewage treatment works were badly in need of investment) and many livestock farms just let waste enter rivers (it’s how they had operated for decades). Between 1973 and 1989 the water authorities’ pollution control and trade effluent teams were tiny so there was very little regulation - but fishing seemed to be better. Is the issue climate change? Politicians have always been fairly useless so this can’t be the reason. I believe it’s the water volume that is a major factor - we take too much water from the environment and climate change is making the problem worse. A properly researched investigation to compare historical conditions to the situation now would be really useful and perhaps the Angling Trust could do it.
Click to expand...
Having started this thread in an attempt to "get this issue off my chest" I have been amazed at the collective knowledge and obvious passion members of BFW have about this problem. Thank you. I am so glad I am not a lone voice banging on about the poor state of the Wye (and rivers in general)
What to do? For my part I am writing to the local Hereford press, the local MP, Angling Trust, Wye and Usk Foundation, NFU and Environment Secretary. I am not kidding myself as I know the problem is complex (thanks to the collective knowledge of this forum) but I am retired and I need something to do when I'm not fishing! Thanks again everyone, you're inspirational.
 
Must just add a post script to my last post a few minutes ago. Was chatting to my wife about all my letter writing and she said "surely you should get the EA involved as well". You can see who has the brains in our family! So add, Environment Agency to the list!!!!
 
If there is one simple thing that somebody can do about the Wye or indeed their local river, and that is write to your MP about your concerns. And if you get a generic waffly answer, then write back again demanding a more substantive response. Pick them up on any errors or assumptions they have made, and keep on at them! MP replies on public forums and twitter is a good idea.

The only thing that can bring about the wholesale change to the way we treat our rivers as nation is a collective will to so by the Govt. This needs to be made a political issue, and politicians need to be under the understanding that votes depend on it. Until they believe that then all we will get is more air-brushing of the issues, obfuscation and inaction.
 
Rob Moore said:
I agree with all of the comments above and what I would like to understand is why fishing and rivers were better sometime in the recent past? Was it because we took less water as the population was smaller? It wasn’t because pollution was lower (sewage treatment works were badly in need of investment) and many livestock farms just let waste enter rivers (it’s how they had operated for decades). Between 1973 and 1989 the water authorities’ pollution control and trade effluent teams were tiny so there was very little regulation - but fishing seemed to be better. Is the issue climate change? Politicians have always been fairly useless so this can’t be the reason. I believe it’s the water volume that is a major factor - we take too much water from the environment and climate change is making the problem worse. A properly researched investigation to compare historical conditions to the situation now would be really useful and perhaps the Angling Trust could do it.
Click to expand...
Was it so much better in the 80's? Take the Trent for example, I believe it was marvellous for catching shoals of roach up to the 1lb mark, but not great for barbel? Would be interesting to hear from some of the older forum members on this who can offer a long-term perspective.

Re livestock farming - more smaller farms in the past, generally at a much lower intensity, with less slurry based housing systems. Much more FYM which had a higher DM content as livestock were fed more on hay rather than silage. Hardly any maize grown compared today, and high risk crops such as spuds were grown in smaller areas and spread out more than in todays world which is generally specialists. And these farms were spread across the country rather than being largely concentrated in the west as they are now. In my own county of Cheshire there were over 70,000 farm workers in the 70's, nowadays I believe its around 6,000. Less farm businesses but more livestock and higher levels of production output. I get the impression that farm operations despite being more labour intensive were much more controlled and timely.

Totally agree about the impact of climate change though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top