Opinion Piece - We've never had it so Good

Prof Tench replies to Mark Williams' 'Opinion Piece - Shouting into a Vacuum'.

Angling? We've never had it so good

Apart from the lead ban, which would have happened sooner or later anyway, most legislation has been driven by anglers themselves with voluntary withdrawal of unsporting methods and adoption of fish welfare improvements like knotless nets and minimum standards for keepnets. I do get the impression that Barrie and Graham perceive that the freedoms they cherish as a core part of angling are being continually squeezed, to the point that angling will become a neutered imitation of its former glory? We have lived for ten years under a government that creates new legislation at an unprecedented rate, leading to accusations of a 'nanny state'. Call me a cynic if you like, but as both our Prime Minister and his wife are barristers, what else would you expect?

Coarse angling has, however, emerged virtually unscathed from this legislative diarrhoea. If there is any real external threat to coarse angling at all, it is from the piecemeal loss of access to fisheries as water resources increasingly come under the control of large NGO's, especially the RSPB and National Trust.

To return to Mark's contention that coarse angling is 'unwell', I have to disagree, frankly we've never had it so good and by considering Mark's points I'll try to explain why.

The twin evils of abstraction and organic pollution

Much of Mark's concerns are with the state of our rivers and the twin evils of abstraction and organic pollution. While I am in agreement with some of his observations I feel he has done a real hatchet re-write of the history of river regulation, but as he states himself 'there is less pollution than 20 years ago', this is hardly compelling evidence to suggest that there is anything deeply wrong with our rivers.

Mark suggests that large-scale industrial pollution has been tackled and mentions the ACA as being among the prime movers in realising this goal. Now I know I'm going to upset some people here, as many anglers hold the ACA as sacrosanct and above criticism, well I don't share that view. I was a member for many years until shortly before they parted company with Mr and Mrs James. I'd become increasingly non-plused by the direction the organisation seemed to be headed and wrote at length to John Bailey to explain my reasons for not renewing my membership. My limited charitable funds are re-directed to marine conservation for the foreseeable future.

There are signs that the ACA is back on track and I may rejoin but it remains a largely re-active organisation, whereas I believe it should now be focussing on a proactive lobbying role. The nuts and bolts of the ACA have traditionally been in the pursuit of civil damages after pollution has occurred, for this to be successful a criminal prosecution will usually be required first. It has been left to the EA and it's predecessors to pursue criminal proceedings against polluters; following a successful prosecution, I suspect there are now any number of solicitors who will pursue damages on a 'no win no fee' basis. So while the costs and adverse publicity that polluters face may act as a deterrent to others, the fines are still relatively low, especially for first offenders. Pollution prevention via education is the real solution, but ask yourself when a river pollution last attracted national media attention? Similarly, when did the ACA ever feature on the national television, radio or broadsheet newspapers? New and small pressure groups like 'Plane Stupid', 'Surfers against Sewage' have managed to attract major media attention to environmental pollution. Given the long established nature of the ACA and it's royal patronage, how many non-anglers have actually ever heard of it? Also, am I alone in sensing that there has always been a bias towards the interests of river game anglers within the ACA?

While anglers and naturalists have continued to be the main custodians of our rivers, the recovery from major industrial pollution has had two main drivers: global economic forces and EC Directives on water quality. The demise of major industry in the North of England cannot be underestimated in the resurgence of river fisheries in this former industrial heartland. Major rivers, including the Tyne, Tees and the once 'biologically dead' Mersey, now all support runs of migratory salmonids, one of the best indicators of a river's health from source to sea. Indeed, in terms of rod and line catches the EA rank the Tyne as England's premier salmon river. Also consider rivers like the Aire, Don and Calder that now support thriving coarse fisheries, viable water quality in these systems can be directly correlated to a massive reduction in industrial discharges owing to closures.

The bureaucrats of Brussels

Now whatever your feelings on the bureaucrats of Brussels, our current environmental legislation was driven by EC Directives written into English law. I strongly doubt that had our regulations for water quality been left to Thatcher, Major and Blair that they would be anything like as robust as they are today. I'm sure there are plenty of readers who can recall the decimation of Scandinavian salmonid fisheries by acidification as a direct result of air pollution caused by the sulphurous emissions from coal fired power stations in the UK under Mrs Thatcher. The tag of 'Dirty Man of Europe' was hard to remove and our record of implementing EC Directives is hardly impressive, leading to the suggestion of 'Slow Man of Europe' as being a fitting title for the UK today. We now have tough and practical legislation to tackle polluters; essentially 'thou shall not pollute controlled waters' unless in possession of a valid consent to discharge or in an emergency. There is now a mass of case history to show how successful this legislation is and defendants rarely contest charges under s.85 of the Water Resources Act 1991.

“Next it was the legalised pollution by sewage works - a situation which led to the devolution of enforcement from the water authorities - who were both poacher and gamekeeper - to what is now the Environment Agency, in an attempt to get independent assessment of the effluent discharges which were wrecking rivers”.

Sorry Mark, but I can't help thinking you've got your knickers in a twist with the above! First, the pollution of rivers by raw sewage massively pre-dates the industrial revolution. The modern London sewers owe their existence to the 'Great Stink' of 1858, when the stench of raw sewage in the Thames outside Westminster was so powerful it had been interrupting parliamentary business.

The legalised pollution by sewage works is still the standard employed today; the discharge consents are a licence to pollute to fixed limits that allow for rapid recovery downstream of a point source. This is a long established and effective practice; at major works effluent strength is continually monitored and regularly sampled by the EA. Breaches of consent still occur, sometimes leading to prosecution, but it is impossible to factor all risk out of sewage treatment.

While the former Water Authorities may technically have been both poacher and gamekeeper, being responsible for both water treatment and enforcement, it is ridiculous to suggest that they were in the habit of wrecking rivers. Being state owned they were directly accountable to government and not motivated by profit or share dividends. It would be nonsense to seek to prosecute yourself but it does not follow that this meant they were blasé about pollution. In fact, it is rather insulting to suggest that their employees (that included Bruno Broughton and Neville Flicking) were motivated by anything other than a desire to achieve the best they could under the budgets available. I will big up the ACA for undertaking the first successful prosecution of a Water Authority but current priorities are much changed in today's environmentally aware climate.

'Devolution' is a funny way of saying sold off by Mrs Thatcher to fund her 'leaner fitter Britain' and history will be the judge of the success of this venture. Many people still resent the selling off a state owned natural monopoly, bought and paid for by taxpayers money, Although, the privatised water utilities are strictly regulated, they are still driven by profit and senior executives are on record as favouring wholesale metering of supplies without any consideration for water conservation. More worrying still, is that they are increasingly in foreign ownership and you have to ask yourself what real interest does a German Utilities company have in the river water quality of Old Father Thames?

We have the bureaucrats of Brussels to thank again for the formation of the NRA; Mrs Thatcher's government thought that water treatment and law enforcement could be entrusted to a private water company. This move was thankfully deemed illegal by the EC, requiring the formation of the state funded NRA, a requirement that was always resented by some at Westminster. The NRA were probably victims of their own success, poorly functioning treatment works were repeatedly soft targets for prosecution in some regions and I suspect that some old scores and grudges were played out at times. The first big cheese of the NRA, Lord Cricklehowell, was deemed to have 'gone native' by certain politicians and it was suggested that the NRA had too much power. I am certain that the formation of the EA was in part an exercise in the watering down of the NRA's clout. Certainly, there are those within the EA today who had been water quality specialists all their working lives, then found they were expected to become heavily involved in the mire that is waste regulation when the EA formed. If you ever wanted a case study in how not to manage change in a big organisation, while demoralising, de-motivating and alienating a large percentage of your workforce the EA wrote the book twice with 'Next Steps' and 'BRITE'. It would be interesting if Bruno and Nev' could be persuaded to remind us why they left the NRA.

Sewage effluents were hardly 'wrecking rivers' wholesale under the old Water Authorities, a lack of government investment and poor understanding of social changes were what put ancient treatment works under pressure. A lot of match anglers still consider this period a 'golden age' of river fishing on rivers like the Trent where coarse fish thrived under moderate organic pollution from the sewer works and thermal pollution from power stations that ensured consistent winter fishing. Providing you could see your float for the rafts of foam that is, but I think you'll find that phosphate reduction was best achieved at source (reduced and removed from washing powders etc…) rather than by 'scrubbing' as you suggest?

Rivers too clean? Look at the strength of the barbel scene for example

“To some extent that worked…………………but things have improved”. I have to say that this is an understatement to say the least, I wonder if anyone fishing the major English rivers in the 60's and 70's would have believed that top angler's would be writing articles complaining that river waters are 'too clean' in the noughties? There is often a problem of perception with something like pollution, that it ought to be settled immediately and if it's not then someone in authority is to blame. You cannot solve a problem like under investment in infrastructure overnight, the issue of old treatment works, struggling under sewage loads they were never designed for required a pragmatic solution. Essentially this is what has happened, after the turmoil created by a gung ho regulator and an unfettered water industry, the two parties sat down and agreed that repeat prosecutions were costly, time consuming and ultimately counterproductive. But the industry needed to set aside strategic funds for long term investment in improving water treatment, this led to the 5 year Asset Management Plans (AMPs) agreed between the regulator and water industry. This has proved a very effective approach to the extent that in many areas sewage treatment is now considered all but done. I agree that there's more work that could be done, but the exciting development is that both parties are now in a position to consider abstraction licences via the AMP process.

In a nutshell then we've seen a vast and continuing improvement in the overall water quality of English rivers and there is a commitment to begin to try to tackle the worst of the over abstraction problems. Sure a few of the very highest quality rivers have dropped a class, but this is massively offset by the 'back from the dead' successes elsewhere. There is now more opportunity for quality coarse fishing on English rivers than in anyone's living memory, so why all the doom and gloom, just look at the strength of the barbel scene for example?

Agriculturtal pollutants and bullying barbel

Agricultural pollutants are a subtler problem, take slurry for example and yes the catastrophic pollutions caused by containment failure are decreasing, the EA and other farming related bodies provide excellent guidance for farmers. No one wants to pollute a watercourse or incur a thumping great fine if they can easily avoid it do they? Unfortunately, because of the amount of intensive livestock rearing facilities in the UK, there is still a tremendous problem of how to dispose of all the waste. Much is just sprayed on to land meaning it can still affect neighbouring watercourses. There are similar concerns with the application of fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides but a great deal of research has been done into how to optimise their usage. Again, it is in nobody's interest for 90% of a fertiliser application to runoff into the drainage network and there is now ample guidance on 'best practice' here too.

“So why aren't the rivers swarming with fish? I think river fishing has improved or at least held steady, but we should have had far greater gains than we have seen, and I believe the blame lies both with the EA and with ourselves”. It is tempting to ask why you think they should be 'teeming with fish'? Who is in position to say what is an optimum biomass and species composition for any given length of English river? As every watercourse greater than a metre wide is likely to have been altered in some way by human activity in England, how do you discern what is a balanced natural system? One simple answer to your question is that most rivers are no longer as polluted as they once were. Sewage effluents are like fertilisers; providing you don't push the BOD too high you increase the biomass the system can support. Consider also predator imbalances, we've suffered increased numbers of cormorants, mink and otters, in addition, Zander also continue to increase their range throughout the English river systems. Barrie has stated on many occasions that in his experience of the Fens it can take ten years from the introduction of Zander until a stable predator/prey balance is restored. Consider the recent success of barbel as a species in rivers where they were previously scarce. Their impact is not unlike that of carp in a stillwater, in that they are the most effective feeders and will bully other species away from a food source. As they dominate the riverbed, they consume invertebrates that later in their life cycle would've entered the drift and become available for chub, roach and dace. They can also make considerable inroads into the fry and spawn of other species. Consider the dominance of strong year classes of fish in rivers, the Trent Roach of the 60/70's, the Warks Avon Chub of the 80's, the lower Thames Dace of the late 80's, the 1976 year class chub. Consider the massive decline in river matches and the gallons of maggots and casters that no longer enter the Trent and Severn every day? Rivers are dynamic ecosystems, you can't expect stasis, but unfortunately this appears to be what the majority of anglers want. Can you imagine the mortalities on stillwaters if we had another winter like 1962/3? I could go on to consider some of the pollutants you mention but I'm sure you get my drift, there are other relevant factors to consider and the overall picture is very positive.

Groundwater abstraction and water meadows

Now when you start to mention groundwater abstraction and water meadows, I'm afraid my antennae start to twitch. You give no specific examples but would I be right in surmising that you are referring to the Wessex rivers? If we include the Kennet and Test along with the Avon and Stour, that's four rivers out of how many in the country as a total? At times you could be excused for thinking that specimen coarse fishing begins and ends with Avon, Kennet and Stour. Sure they have their problems the same as rivers throughout the country and the likes of Pete Reading have drawn attention to them. But these localised issues are not sufficient to make a case that coarse fishing is generally 'not well'. Water meadows are not natural systems; they need to be managed and are totally irrelevant to most rivers in the country, the entire Yorkshire system for example. Despite, the obvious stresses on certain southern rivers, there are plenty of anglers who would swap their own back yards to be able to fish them regularly. You only have to look at what they produce each season to see that they are hardly in crisis?

Slash and burn river 'engineers'

I'm afraid there are still some slash and burn river 'engineers' in senior positions within the EA, but they are waning and find it increasingly hard to fight their corner against the other interests within the Agency. River enhancement and restoration projects are still ongoing but are most applicable to small rivers or the upper reaches of larger one's. I can certainly think of a number of such works on rivers that are not recognised fisheries, so they haven't attracted much attention in our media. I can't recall that we were ever 'promised' anything in respect to habitat improvement, there was a great deal of academic interest in the topic in the early 90's but priorities for research funding are fickle and subject to change? Consider two people approaching a research council for one lot of funding, one wants to undertake a feasibility study into a potentially brilliant mechanism for carbon capture and the other wants to assess the viability of re-introducing Burbot into the Cam. So who gets the money then?

Money and privilege still talk

Governments change and priorities change too and I'm afraid angling isn't often near the top of the list for handouts, especially when we are embroiled in an expensive folly in the middle east. Take the NRA/EA as an example, during the period 1988-92 there were four consecutive years of winter drought in the southeast and no recharge of groundwater aquifers to speak of. The headwaters of many chalk streams disappeared and this attracted a lot of media attention. Some of the finest trout fisheries in the country were threatened and some of the moneyed toffs collared their tame Lords and MP's to get on the case. As we are currently only too well aware, money and privilege still talk in this country regardless of who's in power. So then we see money being thrown at the problem, river restoration becomes a 'vogue' topic and lovely coloured brochures explain how we are going to 'Save the Darent' and wherever else. So great, at last there is something tangible on the table where anglers can actually see the potential for real benefits to our threatened rivers. Then what happens? Well we have some of the worst flooding on record, what the EA class as a 1 in 100 year flood happens twice in a few months and the climate change experts predict an increase in extreme storm events. The flooding costs the economy millions, flood victims are up in arms about it, can no longer get contents insurance for their homes and are threatened with the dreaded 'negative equity'. Of course they bend the ear of whichever politician they can nail down and all of a sudden flood defence is top of the pops again. Of course they then get the lions share of the available funding to spend on flood warning systems, risk maps, sand bags, direct work forces, collapsible flood defences, river 'improvements', emergency planning, planned retreat and so on. See how it works, swings and roundabouts, eh? Where do angling interests sit in the pecking order for government funding, somewhere near the bottom. Why, because it's seen as hobby that can pay for itself, and when weighed up against the prospect of finding your house under water every winter or getting your drinking water from a standpipe every summer it's not deemed that important. What effect does this have on the quality of our angling experience, none whatsoever in my view, that's life as they say.

Habitat improvements to improve fry recruitment

I'm not as convinced as you are that there is as strong a need for habitat improvements to improve fry recruitment as you make out. As for fry being washed into tidal waters, where is the quantitative evidence that this is a real cause for concern? Similarly, isn't river angling largely carried out miles above the tidal reaches of most rivers; it's certainly a long way to the Wash from Adam's Mill isn't? I can recall anecdotal evidence that coarse fish from the Relief Channel were found washed up dead on mudflats, but this is a pretty unique case. The Channel is, of course, a man-made drain not a river and any fishing on it can only really be considered a lucky bonus (as I say we've never had it so good). I believe some agreement was reached with Angling clubs to try to avoid running the channel at 'full throttle' if at all possible, but Barrie could shed more light on this than I can. Consider both the Fen drain network and the Norfolk Broads; essentially these are man-made systems (the Broads themselves are the result of peat diggings). At one time either system could make claim to be England's premier coarse fishery, despite the lack of natural habitats, both succumbed in the 60's and 70's to eutrophication, agricultural run-off, pleasure cruisers and species introductions (Coypu and Zander). Both systems have now recovered some of their former glory but angling expectations have changed and I doubt anglers will ever come back in the numbers they once did. What we do see today, is that both systems offer excellent predator fishing, this hardly suggests that there is any real problem with fry recruitment, despite the best efforts of our friends the cormorants, or is it me that's got it wrong here?

The thorny topic of a 'united angling' body

Now let's consider the thorny topic of a 'united angling' body to lobby government on our behalf. I have shared your frustration in the past at our inability to reflect our numbers in a co-ordinated fashion but not any more. Why, because it is neither necessary nor achievable, angling is far too disparate an interest to hope for any uniform consensus on what we choose to lobby for. Certainly, if I were Barrie and Graham, I would lose much more sleep over the ban mentality that still persists in certain elements of coarse angling than I would over the 'antis'. Most coarse fishing is now carried out on man-made commercial fisheries, and just look at some of the barmy rules in place at certain fisheries. I can think of one that only allows the use of three baits; bread, sweetcorn and meat, I believe! Now without wishing to stir up further divisions within our ranks, I have to state that it is largely a vociferous minority of match anglers that have this ban mentality. To give just one example, I just cannot begin to understand how anyone would want to support a match that bans wasp grub or steak as baits, just because a group of anglers have cleaned up with chub using them rather than maggots and casters? This faction has held strong influence in the big clubs in the past and are still around today, by simply mobilising themselves at AGM's you can say goodbye to night fishing, bivvies, boilies, livebaiting, multiple rods for a season on a show of hands? I just wish that the next time anyone suggests banning something they don't use themselves, that they consider how they'd feel if the wader was on the other foot? Not only is angling a disparate interest but it is increasingly polarised into groups only interested in their own specialism, rather than diluting our power I actually think this is a good thing. The massive growth in carp fishing, has seen a similar rise in bespoke carp waters, this suits most specialists, who would rather not share waters with carp anglers when after other species. I don't doubt the feelings are mutual and you can see a repetition of this trend in barbel fishing given the numerical and financial clout of the Barbel Society. Similarly, match anglers seem quite happy to fish the commercials, where I wouldn't be seen dead, leaving the much improved rivers for the rest of us. This represents a real improvement from the bad old days of having to check the match calendar closely, in the hope of finding a decent stretch of river to fish at the weekend. So everybody should be happy shouldn't they, as we've never had it so good have we? Through the various incarnations of the NASG, NASA, SACG and current SAA, there has been an excellent representation of the coarse anglers political concerns, but one thing we really don't need is any more bloody groups, whether united umbrella organisations or not!

Be careful what you wish for

“Angling MUST get itself scientific representation, and that is why I endorse fully the idea of a levy on rod licences of £1 (or more) to set up a body which looks at the big picture”. Be careful what you wish for here, the EA already do a considerable amount of research especially with respect to river population surveys. Some years ago match anglers complained long and hard about the decline in fishing on the Warks Avon, when I believe that the real cause was that the very strong year class of chub that won most matches simply died out. To assuage their concerns, a survey was made, the interpretation of which indicated a predator imbalance, which the match boys naturally leapt on demanding a cull. The Agency officers, tired of having their ears bent (public servants are human too), succumbed to the idea and removed a number of pike, with some good doubles among them. Subsequently, a massive head of small Zander appeared, predator imbalance indeed, best left to mother nature I think you'll all agree?

The problem with scientific research is that it is scientific, you can't change the results to suit what you want to believe and at times you may inadvertently end up with a set of results that show a negative side to angling. Some years ago a small group of anglers conducted their own research into the condition of barbel in a short stretch of river. This was achieved by keeping a written record of all morphological irregularities on fish caught by rod and line over a realistic time period. When the results were brought to public attention, they were interpreted as having serious implications for the future welfare of the stock. This interested the NRA fisheries team, who agreed to undertake their own survey with electro-fishing gear, this cast a rather different light on the initial survey. A large number of barbel were sampled that could be classed as being in 'pristine' condition and a smaller number were found to be in less than pristine condition, these also proved to be predominantly fish pan jetted (marked with dye) during the angler survey. The logical inference to draw from the NRA result, is that poor condition in barbel in this stretch of river is likely to be the result of damage caused by repeat captures, rather than environmental factors as suggested by the anglers. Hardly good PR for the barbel specialist, eh?

To re-iterate, if you want the science, you have to be prepared to accept the results; do you remember all the concern about the state of the Trent stocks not so long ago? Once again the NRA produced the results of their own research, showing that the stocks were perfectly healthy if distributed more patchily than in the past, probably the result of the declining influence of the power stations and a species shift resulting from a cleaner river. Unfortunately, the main protagonists simply refused to accept the results, if they couldn't catch in their old haunts on their traditional methods then the fish weren't there and there must be something wrong with the river. So much for science then, but seriously, this attitude has hardly enamoured busy scientists to consider anglers concerns. It would be interesting to hear, with hindsight, how bad long-term Trent regulars think the river is today; any comments Archie (Braddock)?

I don't see any prospect at all of there being a major scientific body set up to research angling matters in the near future and neither do I think that there is really any need for one. What is happening is that the single species pressure groups now have the finances to pursue their own research in partnership with the experts. ECHO's involvement with the Koi Herpes Virus issue being the best example I can give. If you have any real specific concerns (you'll need to do better than the 'big picture') that warrant a scientific study you can always approach the relevant bodies. There are now a great many BSc and MSc courses in fisheries, environmental and water resources sciences, good dissertation projects are always at a premium but don't expect much in the way of funding. Most anglers have heard of Sparsholt, Ian Cowx runs an MSc Fisheries course at Hull and the Aquatic Resources Management MSc from UCL is highly regarded to name but a few. Project tutors are often happy to consider realistic research topics and can provide feedback on the quality of the final report.

The pain and cruelty to fish by angling issue

One area of research I truly believe is totally facile and counter-intuitive, is any attempt to qualify pain or cruelty to fishes by angling. Both terms are subjective and anthropomorphic, I doubt if we'll ever know what a fish feels or thinks, or if they can really do either and neither would I want to know if we could. Would the results of any such research really alter anyone's take on fishing, I doubt it; wouldn't it just lead to more circular arguments that achieve nothing? We don't need to defend our sport from claims that it is cruel; nature's cruel, all we need to do is demonstrate that angling is a social and economic source for good in society. I don't know if anyone's read Alexander Schwab's hopelessly flawed attempt to provide a rational defence for angling from the kind of ammunition that is the stock in trade of the animal rights movement? ('hook, line and thinker - Angling and Ethics', Merlin Unwin Books 2003) If you haven't, I'll save you all the bother, as the basic premise is that as fish aren't human, fish can't feel what we understand as 'pain' therefore angling can't be cruel. I'm sure that line of reasoning will have every anti running for cover and renouncing the movement to take up seal clubbing for fun! The crass stupidity of trying to make an ethical case for angling when there is no case to answer in the first place, is masterfully demonstrated when he even fails to persuade himself that catch and release is acceptable but thinks clubbing to death a 37lb pike for a French village barbecue shows why 'fishing is good'. Talk about out of touch, catch and release is the enlightened approach to fishing everywhere in the western world, we are not starving Neanderthal fishmongers who need to catch fish to eat, we fish because we enjoy it, so if you can return a fish and it then gives another angler the pleasure of catching it where's the harm?

The RSPB

“The RSPB, for one, knows this and powerful as it is, would welcome a joint agenda with angling". Oh really, are you absolutely sure about this, I'm tempted to quote John McEnroe and state 'you cannot be serious'! We can certainly learn from the RSPB, the political and financial clout that a million, predominantly middle class, members gives them is enviable. Certainly, the ability to purchase and manage our own sites is a dream for anglers, as is the ability to provide salaried full-time posts. But keep dreaming, because all the evidence from the recent past suggests it won't happen with angling any time soon, if at all. The RSPB have no interest in working with anglers unless it suits their own agenda, which is no basis for a partnership; their intransigence over the cormorant issue has created a rift that may never heal. Certainly a lot of anglers who were members of the RSPB left because of their stance with regards to cormorants, while it would be nice to think that by remaining members anglers could have exerted influence over this decision, the reality suggests otherwise.

During the early 90's Mark Pilcher of the NRA led a controlled research project into cormorant predation at Thames Water's Ryemeads site, managed by the RSPB. Two lagoons of near identical size were cleared of all stock then re-stocked with controlled numbers of fish, one lagoon was netted over the other left uncovered. Cormorants were observed to feed on the uncovered lagoon, working the area in ever decreasing circles and then criss-crossing the lagoon. When the cormorants stopped visiting the site both lagoons were electro-fished, all fish stocked in the covered lagoon were recovered there were none left in the other. Around the same time, Terry Mansbridge produced his own quantitative report of the cormorant population in the Lee Valley, you could witness the habit destruction caused by cormorant roosts on islands in the Walthamstow reservoir complex. The competitive decline of the heronry at Walthamstow, along with a marked reduction of other piscivorous bird species there correlated with the massive presence of cormorants. As a result of all this and other information, MAFF deemed that more research would be required before any form of cull could be considered; the RSPB consistently campaigned against any form of cull. This is the same organisation that is happy to sanction the cull of hedgehogs because they eat bird's eggs; they are also very reticent to be open about the carnage that takes place on some of their reserves in the name of conservation. This includes killing foxes, squirrels, crows and magpies to preserve rarity, in which the RSPB has a vested interest, as you cannot expect to charge high entrance fees to view species you can watch easily for free elsewhere. Despite appearances, the RSPB is certainly not as robust an organisation as it appears, having already nearly split once over the Ruddy duck issue, when the same people who objected to a cormorant cull were perfectly happy to recommend the annihilation of the Ruddy duck. I'm certain if the high proportion of fluffy bunny people who are members of the RSPB were made aware of the real numbers of animals and birds their wardens kill on their reserves each year, they would rapidly lose significant numbers of their existing membership. So you can try and forge strong links with the RSPB if you like Mark and I wish you well. I, however, shall not work with them; they are a hypocritical organisation that we really don't need to get involved with. I know a number of the committed grass roots members, who I can assure you have absolutely no interest in working with anglers at all. I regard my view as the rational conclusion of a mature and responsible angler, but persuade me that I am behaving like a 'toddler' if you disagree Mark?

Agenda/Wish List

As to your agenda/wish list while your aims are all laudable, all but one is totally unrealistic in the present economic climate. The only major groundwater aquifer in England is the Chalk and the old Southern water authority region depends on it for 70% of its' domestic supply, a 50% reduction is totally unfeasible in the short-term despite efforts towards water conservation per capita consumption continues to increase. The privatised water utilities have a vested interested in pushing for an unrestricted metered supply to maximise profits and even assuming that you could push a large surface reservoir past the planners and that's assuming a lot, you could be looking at as long as 20 years before a major reservoir is fully operational. My own feeling is that the regulators and shareholders should be hammering the water companies over leakage, pushing for investment in desalinisation plants and looking into the feasibility of grey-water schemes for non-consumptive uses like irrigation. The real scope for reduced abstraction is with that taken direct from rivers for agricultural purposes, especially irrigation and it's these licences that the EA is looking at very closely with a view towards revocation. For example, huge volumes of water are abstracted from the Warks Avon each summer for the fruit growing industry; significant reductions in water use can be simply met by measures like drip feeds and nighttime sprinkling to reduce losses via evaporation. One issue that is doing no favours at all to the quantity of water flowing in Southern rivers is the continual population rise in the southeast. The government has approved a massive building project along the Thames Gateway, figure in the Olympic development as well and a major increase in demand is inevitable, in an area where annual precipitation inputs can be as low as that typical of semi-arid region. Why no government has ever properly tackled this issue I just don't know. By making real incentives for employment in the North-west, where there is plentiful water supply, cheaper housing and large numbers of vacant social housing in some conurbations, a great deal of environmental stress could be removed from the Home Counties.

I don't have a problem with improving waterway habitat, there are plenty of projects in progress and there is plenty of scope for clubs to make their own improvements. If, however, as a result of such actions you expect to see drastic improvements in the quality of coarse fisheries, I think you're mistaken, as there is nothing much wrong with them as things stand.

Water meadows are very a minor issue if you take river fishing as a whole, as it is not a management technique that you can apply to most rivers. Where they are applicable they still exist and you'll certainly get support from factions within the EA, Natural England and the Wildlife Trusts to improve and extend their range. While they provide a unique habitat, and hence potential for enhanced biodiversity the benefit to fisheries is limited if compared to normal flooding. Again, I can't stress strongly enough that they are only really applicable to southern rivers fed by chalk aquifers and not a panacea for your perceived problems with rivers nationally.

Last, it would be lovely to see lowland rivers meandering across their floodplains and flooding as nature intended, but unfortunately there are 60 million people (and rising) disproportionately crammed into the lowland areas of a small island. There has been far too much infrastructure built on lowland floodplains to allow wholesale reversal of the current situation, just consider London, the Thames and its' tributaries for instance. Similarly, much land has been drained for agricultural purposes, there was a window of opportunity to allow rivers to regularly flood onto the floodplains again, when surplus production within the EC led to the creation of 'set aside' schemes. I fear that window is closing again, there has been a massive increase in demand for home grown 'organic' produce and people are figuring things like 'food miles' and 'carbon footprints' into their purchases. I suspect that given the less intensive methods involved in 'organic' production, fertile arable land on the alluvial floodplains of our lowland rivers may soon be at a premium. As for the 'washes' system, the only such system I am aware of are the Ouse Washes, where the land between two of the major drains is allowed to flood in winter, the real ecological benefits here are to species other than fish. Fenland is a kind of love it or hate it type of environment, while it can provide a false sense of wilderness, it is an example of the most extreme form of industrial environmental management you can find in England. I've seen the prairie like fields, lack of hedgerows, rigid drainage network and heavy reliance on fertilisers referred to as an 'agricultural holocaust' in texts. Maintaining the drainage system alone runs into expenditure of millions of pounds a year, the reclaimed soils are peat based and with peat being 90% water they have shrunk alarmingly since they were drained. Add to this the fact that there is ample evidence that soils have simply blown away and it is easy to understand why the drains and straightened rivers are now perched way above the level of the surrounding fields. As the fields are no longer subject to regular flooding they rely on inputs of NPK fertilisers to remain productive and their runoff is considered to have contributed greatly to the decline of the Fens as a fishery in the 1970's. Despite of what might be considered to be large-scale environmental degradation, the Fens can obviously still make excellent fisheries, which should properly be considered as a 'bonus' by-product of the industrial age. Certainly, if it were returned to original fenland overnight, by magic wand, I doubt if it would be much fished. Access would be problematic and you would need to take to a boat to fish properly, the water quality wouldn't be all that great either, may even be brackish and would definitely be best avoided if you don't like eels!

Too much information available?

So if all is really not well with anglers as you suggest, I'm afraid I am not convinced the reasons can be attributed to a real problem with our rivers. As you say, you draw your sense of woe from 'the pulse of coarse fishing through the talented anglers at FM'. Here I think you have identified the real nub of the dissatisfaction within coarse angling today, there is simply too much information available these days and it is killing the enjoyment of fishing. Specialist angling can certainly attract introverts and deep thinkers, who are prone to focus on negatives or 'may never happen' scenarios, ask yourself how many miseries and grumpy blokes you meet when fishing? By continually reading negative reports about the future of angling and perceived threats to its quality, like your own opinion piece, it is easy to become fixated that the outlook is bleak when it quite patently and demonstrably is not.

A self-fulfilling tide of paranoia about the anti's?

Let's briefly look at the perception of the threat posed to angling by the so-called anti's, there are plenty of respected anglers who would have us believe that following the legislation concerning hunting with dogs, that all the 'sabs' are ready to turn their attention to angling and the end is nigh. Now with the greatest respect to the proponents of such a view it is frankly a load of old bollocks! 'Sabs' like sabbing and will continue to do so for as long as the Hunts continue to ride, why, because it's exciting, and is what they're used to doing at the weekend. A passive pursuit like angling is no fun at all. How many people have told you they're not interested in fishing because it's too boring? If the former Hunt Saboteurs actually turned their attention to organised angling events I suspect they'd give it up sooner rather than later, provided the anglers don't rise to their bait. Can you imagine anything more boring than hurling abuse at a line of match anglers for five hours in winter? There are two areas that the genuine Hunt Saboteurs will diversify into if the Hunts eventually wind down. Those with a genuine concern for animal welfare will join the anti-vivisection lobby, while those more motivated by class issues will hop on the environmental band-wagon, where they might find they have a lot more in common with anglers than they might have believed. Climate change is suddenly supposedly near the top of everyone's agenda, why now I'm not sure, the scientific basis for atmospheric pollution causing global warming has been around since at least the 1970's (see Mitchell, J. M. 1977). Global Warming has been presented as scientific fact in academic texts since the 1980's and the recent IPCC report makes no really new observations than those presented in the first one published in 1990. Anyway, it certainly seems to be the current cause select and I can certainly see redundant Hunt Saboteurs being more easily persuaded into jumping this particular train than targeting angling. As for the animal rights movement, they appear to be losing public sympathy, which is a masterful achievement in a country that prefers pets to children. The impact of the disturbing images of vivisection has been undone by the exposure of the egocentric, self-styled martyrs of the extreme end of the movement. It seems they can't resist a camera, and the tactics employed during the campaigns against Huntingdon Life Sciences and Oxford University have certainly lost them far more support than they've gained. The star 'martyrs' of both campaigns are now in jail and come across as being holier than thou fanatics, with deep-seated personality disorders verging on the psychotic, who scrounge off the state, contribute nothing to society and can't even present a rational case for their actions. Digging up a corpse and releasing reared animals into the wild are hardly the actions of a person with a deeply held compassion for all life, are they? I have no concerns for their capacity to sway the non-angling public against us, nor to persuade government to legislate against us. In fact, I feel that their tactics are counterproductive and that the real heyday of the animal rights movement was in the 1960/70's when it was fresh, attracted glamorous celebrities like Bridget Bardot and first raised awareness of issues that are now old news. Unlike the apparent consensus on FM that angling is increasingly up against it in terms of public opinion, I can't say that the situation is any worse now than it was in the 70's, when I recall that Chris Binyon and co had badges imploring us to 'Put the Jack Back' and that 'Pike are People'. Animal rights indeed! Now I know that the likes of Barrie and Keith Barker have been carefully studying all media reports of anti-angling activity and sentiment for quite some time. Perhaps now would be a good time to publish the results as I feel it is time for a sober reflection on the reality of the threat to angling, rather than continue be swept along on a self-fulfilling tide of paranoia.

Now I've the greatest admiration for Barrie's contribution to coarse angling, he stands head and shoulders above anyone else in terms of political involvement, but I rarely agree with much he has to say regarding the future of angling these days. It seems that he senses anti-angling sentiment is a regular occurrence, whereas I can't think of a recent single clear incident in the national media off the top of my head. Barrie has stated unequivocally on more than one occasion, that the BBC are anti-angling, had he said that people have appeared on the BBC who are ignorant, misinformed or plain ambivalent where fishing is concerned I might agree but demonstrably anti-angling, I think not? Just from memory I recall that BBC TV have been responsible for two series of the Fishing Race, at least two series of Hooked, Passion for Angling and the recent 'Accidental Angler', only today Country File featured a lovely video diary by a lady angler, without the merest hint of derision from John or Michaela. Radio 4 are currently serialising 'Salmon Fishing in the Yemen' by Paul Torday (also favourably reviewed on Newsnight), Henry Gilbey and Ed Schifflke have both put in an appearance on Rick Stein and I'm sure I saw Barrie himself in a boat on Lomond with a dirty great pike once upon a time. These hardly seem the actions of a virulently anti-angling organisation; and what could be more re-assuring, should angling ever face a real ban, than the knowledge that the Beeb's most revered political 'attack dog', Jeremy Paxman, is himself a keen angler?

Angling has lost its direction

While I'm sure that the anti-angling conspiracy theorists have contributed to the unease Mark senses within coarse angling, I think the real reason for this state is that as a hobby it has lost all direction. If you consider the post-war period as the dawn of the rational 'scientific' approach to specialist angling initiated by Dick Walker and co, as opposed to the romantic tradition personified by Chris Yates and other backwards looking eccentrics. Then there has been a continual drive to develop better methods, better tackle, better baits, better understanding of the fish and we can all access bigger fish than ever before. Angling has become increasingly commercialised, there are no more secrets as they've all been sold, the location of record fish is known practically down to the best swim, every big fish has a name and a list of captors, at this rate if Bertie the Barbel farts in swim xyz at Kickles farm you'll receive an instant text message sponsored by the Orange on-line barbel network. Too many magazines, with too much technical information and not enough comment and reflection, the fishing is too easy and all the mystery has gone. Can you believe that on this small island anybody would be stupid enough to pay for the services of a 'guide' to help them catch a fish as dumb as a barbel, or employ something as unsporting and anti-social as a baitboat to catch some fat carp? We've seriously lost the plot somewhere, if you employ someone to help throw a big fish in your lap, do you seriously believe that it is likely to help sustain a passion for angling? What happened to achievement, watercraft, working things out for yourself, catching your own fish? These teenage kids sat behind batteries of carp rods on teach-ins, reeling off their lists of 20's and 30's, do you think they'll still be fishing in ten years time? It is human nature to want to strive to improve but it is also human nature to become bored of repeating the same experience over and over again. My Dad fished all his life and had always wanted to catch a carp and a barbel; he had to wait until his late 40's to do it having read BB and Stoney for 20 years. I'd never seen him so excited in all his life and will never forget him running down the banks of the Severn at Bridgenorth to show me his first barbel, all 3lb of it. When did you last shake when you caught a fish, or yelped with joy or even just smiled? The fish are so big these days too, when I was a kid a 6lb tench was a monster, nowadays if you caught ten in a session no one would bat an eyelid and wonder why you hadn't had any big ones. We have seriously lost our way somewhere along the line, there are so many anglers trying to make money out of fishing now that it is hard not to be cynical and it is now possible to virtually buy success, something I suspect Walker would have found an anathema in fishing.

Now the above I feel is closer to the truth for the reason for the present malaise in coarse angling, rather than any serious issues of environmental quality. I'll state my case again, we have never had more quality coarse angling opportunities, with the rise of gravel pits, reservoirs, purpose designed commercial stillwaters, the rivers are generally cleaner now than they have been in living memory and more accessible. The opportunities to catch big fighting fish like carp, tench and barbel have never been better, the introduction of Zander and Wels catfish have increased the diversity of sporting species and the fish just keep getting heavier. Owing to the demise of match-orientated control of clubs, plus the guiding influence of the specimen groups, there are fewer restrictions on specialist anglers than I've ever known. There are waters to cater for every pocket and type of angling from the £1500 a season carp syndicate to the free stretch of the Lower Severn where a 15lb barbel or Zander is a realistic target. We have more free time, access to transport and disposable income to spend on fishing than ever before. There is more cheap quality tackle and bait than ever before and enough written, video, DVD, TV and Internet fishing to keep you in your armchair for the rest of our lives. We have become virtually self-policing with voluntary adoption of codes of conduct and improvements in fish welfare. Despite perceptions to the contrary the only real threats to our angling freedoms come internally, from other anglers. But we're still not bloody happy, then were we ever? C'est la vie as they say and I didn't even mention France and Spain!

So persuade me that you really don't believe that we've never had it so good Mark, I bet you can't? If you'd like a new challenge have you ever tried specimen shore fishing for cod, bass, skate, smoothies or conger? If you have then you'll know that the sea anglers do have genuine cause to worry for the future of their sport but coarse fishing is safe as houses in comparison.

Cheers, PT

Ref. Mitchell, J.M., Jr., 1977, Carbon dioxide and future climate, Environmental Data Service, March, U.S. Dept. Commm., pp3-9.