The Environment Agency....

[Tee-Cee]

The Agency sometimes gets a bad press for one reason or another, so it was pleasing to read of some positive information in the latest news letter received by email yesterday.

In December they released 143,000 course fish into 71 water in England, all bred and reared on EA fish farms in Nottinghamshire. Very good news, although some will say it should be 543,000!
In addition, they are consulting on the existing close season and folk are invited to comment before sometime in June...
The one bit of news that did interest me was an EA programme for the introduction of pure crucian carp into still waters around the country. It's going to take time to see the fruits of this programme and probably not all parts of the country will benefit, but I see it as positive news.

Personally I think they do some very good work on our behalf, but others will see it not enough or not the best use of funds......

What do you think?

 

[no-one in particular]

Generally I don't like what they have done regarding altering structures without fish passes, fencing off bits of fishing for no good reason, putting signs up in a lot places advertising their ridiculous fines. I did report a possible pollution once and they were on to it within hours which was good. I didn't like the putting up of the day ticket from £3 to £6. The stocking of fish is good and crucians but is it only going to clubs that belong to the AT? The recent efforts of the AT to get recreational sea fishing recognized by Government is probably leading to a sea license which is probably backed by the EA in the background so they can all leave that one alone.
I don't know all the facts because they are hard to find when they shouldn't be and I don't like that either, mushrooms; but, its not worth worrying about as the license will always be here, it will always go up on average every year and a sea licence will most likely come in and no amount of surveys, consultations, moaning etc etc will change any of it.
But overall, the governors of fishing have all been detrimental to my personal fishing or at least it has received very little benefit and a sea licence will be the next bit of personal detriment/cost most likely.

 

[peterjg]

Obviously some of the work that the EA does is good BUT overall they are pretty useless!

What are they doing to help us with:
Cormorants
Signal crayfish
Otters
Pollutants such as farm fertilisers, road drainage, etc, etc.
Abstraction
Unecessary weed and tree cutting
The building of new reservoirs
Proper monitoring of the Water Companies

I'll stop now, I can feel my blood pressure rising!

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

I've been saying this since the day the EA was created - they are the biggest DISORGANISATION in the country.

When they want to do something that is detrimental to fisheries, but against the WFD, it's OK

If you want to do anything at all, it must first pass the WFD otherwise forget it.

There are far too many people employed there who sit behind fancy desks with a contract of employment in one hand and their pension statement in the other. Many of them do not know what or where the rivers are and the only way they know where the front door of the building is is because they have to find it every night when they go home.

The fisheries team on the other hand are very helpful - at times!

Edit: They did provide us with 2000 fish as well last year.

 

[lutra]

No idea why the EA stocking fish is seen as a good thing. I see it as a sign of their failure and in most cases has little long term benefit to the water.

IMO it's just a PR stunt to help keep anglers money coming in because it's cheaper than sorting out the real problem that many of your waters are bloody filthy.

 

[trotter2]

Definitely agree stocking rivers is a complete waste af money and does nothing to sort the many problems our rivers are experiencing.

 

[Pete Shears]

I think stocking fish in any river ,still water is just feeding cormorants - they need dealing with first.

 

[no-one in particular]

I don't know why they don't scrap the license and put £5/£10 a year on everyone's personal tax. Its more money, its in everyone's interest to have clean rivers/healthy fish stocks, well run waterways and a clean environment to live in. Cuts out all the administration costs, police time and court time wasting. Every one damages the environment, walkers, horse riders etc. Everyone claims to be concerned about the environment these days, let everyone pay a bit extra for it.
Its archaic, past its useful sell by date, should move on and adapt to modern needs.

 

[lutra]

I don't know why they don't scrap the license and put £5/£10 a year on everyone's personal tax. Its more money, its in everyone's interest to have clean rivers/healthy fish stocks, well run waterways and a clean environment to live in. Cuts out all the administration costs, police time and court time wasting. Every one damages the environment, walkers, horse riders etc. Everyone claims to be concerned about the environment these days, let everyone pay a bit extra for it.
Its archaic, past its useful sell by date, should move on and adapt to modern needs.

I agree but think think the polluters should be paying. If they need to pass the cost on, then so be it. But the EA is failing anglers in letting it go on.

 

[lutra]

I think stocking fish in any river ,still water is just feeding cormorants - they need dealing with first.

Never going to happen to the degree anglers would like and personally think it would make much difference if it did.

 

[trotter2]

I agree the stocking is just feeding predation, but the problems facing over rivers are more widespread and cover many diffrent facets. Predation is only one problem in a whole string of complexed issues affecting our rivers and streams.
Peterjd listed a few already.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

No idea why the EA stocking fish is seen as a good thing. I see it as a sign of their failure and in most cases has little long term benefit to the water.

IMO it's just a PR stunt to help keep anglers money coming in because it's cheaper than sorting out the real problem that many of your waters are bloody filthy.

Normally, it's only waters that have suffered a pollution incident or other catastrophic event that they do restock. It's also largely small feeder streams, such as ours, that are shallow where the predators, cormorants, can get. As for "bloody filthy" in fact most rivers are now cleaner than they've ever been and that is a fact. Perhaps too clean and there is little in the way of good spawning areas on the main rives, especially those used for navigation.

I agree but think think the polluters should be paying. If they need to pass the cost on, then so be it. But the EA is failing anglers in letting it go on.

The court fines for pollution are increasing, but they go straight to the Treasury and spent on benefits, foreign aid, weapons, you name it. In some cases the EA accept what is known as an Enforcement Undertaking (EU) instead of going to court and this can be spent on habitat renewal and conservation.

Pollutions will go on and on for two reasons: 1) equipment, even brand new stuff, will always be liable to break down (just as car parts will) and despite fail safes in the systems they won't always prevent an incident; 2) the public using toilets and sink waste pipes to dispose of all manner of stuff that should go into a rubbish or recycling bin. On that second part it's things like face wipes and cooking oils that are the main culprit in forming these fatbergs, some as large as 230 metres long, in the sewerage system and when they break down naturally, they cause all manner of problems at an STW.

Be assured, as far as I now know, some companies like Thames Water, who I work WITH very well, are only too prepared to do all they can to prevent pollutions in the first place. Following their enormous fines in 2017 (£20.2m) they installed an automatic fault reporting system that goes straight to head office rather than relying, as it it did in 2013/14, on local management who covered it up. TW also pay out a lot towards improving habitat and works to help nature; for example £1.5m following that massive fine along with other big contributions.

Oh, and NONE of this is passed on to consumers.

 

[rich66]

I’ve had some dealings with the EA as we are riperian water owners, nothing fancy a small brook ( actually reclassified by the EA as a river ) running through our property. Mainly I’ve found them to be quite helpful regarding farm pollution, monitoring of local builders thinking it’s a good way of getting rid of ****, flood control etc, they come down and clear the sections upstream and will sometimes do our bit too. Please to say our small brook has more fish & amphibious life in it than I’ve seen for many a year, hopefully this will continue.
Locally I believe they’ve introduced a lot of fish into the GUC under Wigston AS control. Plus I’ve read the good work they’ve done helping the Avon Roach Project.
I’m sure there’s plenty they could do better, not wanton destruction of trees etc along the waters edge. Would love to see more Officers out and about checking licenses and catching poachers, license dodgers etc. But resources are finite so they can’t do everything but I suppose they could be better run etc. Like most things they are never going to please everyone
Fines I think should be ploughed back into the EA rather than the treasury.

 

[tigger]

143.000 fish is a token jesture, it's a drop in the ocean as to numbers of fish.
As has been said already, it's something to keep the license coming it !
The EA reckon the no of lisences bought has dropped off significantly?
How can they say that at the time they did as I don't think they''d had anywhere near 12 months time to get a correct figure of licenses bought after their change in the prices of various tickets and when people purchase them. The change in price was a win win for them !
No lower priced ticket for the angler who only uses one rod, and lets face it there is a hell of a lot of 'em....sneaky EA!
The EA lisence should be done away with along with the closed season.

 

[Keith M]

I don't know why they don't scrap the license and put £5/£10 a year on everyone's personal tax. Its more money, its in everyone's interest to have clean rivers/healthy fish stocks, well run waterways and a clean environment to live in. Cuts out all the administration costs, police time and court time wasting. Every one damages the environment, walkers, horse riders etc. Everyone claims to be concerned about the environment these days, let everyone pay a bit extra for it.
Its archaic, past its useful sell by date, should move on and adapt to modern needs.

But if the licence fee was paid for by the public (including the fishing antis) then we would have less elbow in trying to get things done because A). Most of the non-anglers only see the cute things swimming on the top of the water and wouldn’t even be aware of the water quality and lack of fish swimming below the surface, and B). The antis would have more of a voice if the licence money came out of their own pockets.

I know a couple of Scottish anglers who have told me that they wish that they had an NRA and coarse rod licence to help stop the game anglers from removing coarse fish from their precious game rivers.

I know that there are a lot of things that the NRA could do a lot better and they get a lot of slagging off from anglers who don’t like parting with their cash but I would rather be paying for someone who at least tried to do some work to improve rivers and stillwaters (even if it isn’t always enough) rather than have no one at all in our corner.

They don’t do very much if anything for commercial fisheries because these are business money making concerns anyway who should be looking after themselves, and they aren’t seen a lot on rivers and stillwaters unless the fish have suffered through pollutions or other similar problems so if you don’t see them on your waters then chances are that your waters have been fine and not needed them so far, and even when they have been needed they seem a little reluctant to take polluters to court which is why whenever our estate lake was polluted in the past our club has always called out the ACA first (now Fish Legal of the Angling Trust) to take their water samples and prosecute the offenders, because we couldn’t rely on the the NRA to do this for us.

I realise that it depends on your post code but in our area the NRA was always willing to supply us with air pumps, boats and other equipment plus a couple of people to help rectify some of the damage done to our fishery after a pollution.

I have no problems with paying for my rod licence because I know that for the price of a small round of drinks I can at least have someone to call on in my area if something does go wrong. I only wish they had more teeth and were a lot better run.

Keith

 

[no-one in particular]

Keith-It would change the dynamics of the whole thing and we would lose some arm twisting power but the EA would get a lot more money which seems to be one of the problems so maybe we would benefit from that. Not sure about the antis having more power, the EA receives the bulk of its money from taxation anyway. Licensing money coming from traps, shotguns etc are understandable but a license to weld a fishing rod! Its a bit archaic the arguments for it. They would save money in administration and policing. Pollution, clean environment, abstractions, clean rivers etc are their remit anyway, their obligations wont change and maybe the public would take more notice if they were aware they were paying more for it and maybe with more money at their disposal they could do more. The only one that might change is their obligation to stock fish but they are part of the food chain for many of the cute creatures so an obligation to provide a healthy population would still be in force to replace whats lost through pollution etc.
I wouldn't worry, its never going to happen. I was just weighing up the pros and cons and I think there are more pros and its not so much the cost to me personally but just seems it could be a fairer and better way to run it and could make the EA stronger which would be a good thing.

 

[lutra]

Normally, it's only waters that have suffered a pollution incident or other catastrophic event that they do restock. It's also largely small feeder streams, such as ours, that are shallow where the predators, cormorants, can get. As for "bloody filthy" in fact most rivers are now cleaner than they've ever been and that is a fact. Perhaps too clean and there is little in the way of good spawning areas on the main rives, especially those used for navigation.

The court fines for pollution are increasing, but they go straight to the Treasury and spent on benefits, foreign aid, weapons, you name it. In some cases the EA accept what is known as an Enforcement Undertaking (EU) instead of going to court and this can be spent on habitat renewal and conservation.

Pollutions will go on and on for two reasons: 1) equipment, even brand new stuff, will always be liable to break down (just as car parts will) and despite fail safes in the systems they won't always prevent an incident; 2) the public using toilets and sink waste pipes to dispose of all manner of stuff that should go into a rubbish or recycling bin. On that second part it's things like face wipes and cooking oils that are the main culprit in forming these fatbergs, some as large as 230 metres long, in the sewerage system and when they break down naturally, they cause all manner of problems at an STW.

Be assured, as far as I now know, some companies like Thames Water, who I work WITH very well, are only too prepared to do all they can to prevent pollutions in the first place. Following their enormous fines in 2017 (£20.2m) they installed an automatic fault reporting system that goes straight to head office rather than relying, as it it did in 2013/14, on local management who covered it up. TW also pay out a lot towards improving habitat and works to help nature; for example £1.5m following that massive fine along with other big contributions.

Oh, and NONE of this is passed on to consumers.

Sorry Jeff, I don't know any rivers that are to clean. The ones around here carry raw sewage regular when we have heavy rain. It's not even screened so it hangs from the trees and you wind nasty things in when your flood water fishing. From my time spent on the river, I know for a fact the water companies don't get caught for it all the time, but when they do its cheaper to pay the fines than spend the millions to stop it happening. So while some of your rivers may have improved from the dark industrial days when nothing could live in them, they are still open sewers even today.

That's the stuff we can see. What about the stuff we can't see. The cocktail runoff, chemicals and drugs. These things are going into your rivers all the time and no one really seems to a clue of their effects.

Clear rivers and natural fish recruitment is easily our biggest problem. Fix that and predation wouldn't be the problem some anglers think it is and that is a fact.

 

[nottskev]

Can a river be "too clean"? Common sense suggests not, yet that is a main strand of the EA's own explanation, such as it is, when challenged to say why coarse fish stocks, as reported by all the major clubs, have slumped on the lower Derwent, leaving little more than grayling caught on stretches that were a mecca for coarse and match angling. Pointing to improved sewage treatment, they claim the changed habitat may now be favouring game fish. Of course, sewage is only one of many things that may be going into a river, and fixing on measurements of discharge may involve ignoring other things.

However, the boast is that the Derwent is "cleaner". If you take the fishing around its confluence with the Trent, you find that a hundred metres up the Derwent there is precious little to be caught; fish stocks on the Trent at the confluence - and the Trent is measured to be a "dirtier" river by the same standards- are prolific for a wide variety of species.

As regards re-stocking of rivers.... is it always as futile as is claimed? Are there no occasions when putting fish in a river has helped to kickstart, seed or accelerate recovery of stocks? I get the point that stocking a failing river is pretty pointless, but can there be occasions when recovery of a river that has passed through a slump can be assisted? Catching a few little grayling on stretches that not so long ago provided some of the best river coarse fishing in the country is more than a little depressing.

Last winter, I was catching the regulation little grayling when two people, a man and woman, late 20's in outdoor clothes, stopped to chat. They seemed interested - it was all news to them - to hear a few things about the river, it's history, the changing fishing, the current concerns. When I asked what brought them there, they told me they were EA officers heading upstream to check the level measuring station. I wasn't inspired that they seemed to know so little.

 

[peterjg]

Nottskev, thankyou for your excellent post.

The rivers that I fish may be "cleaner" but they are possibly in places so clean as to be almost sterile! We hear good things about certain reaches of the Thames but overall the Thames is not as productive as it used to be - and that is also the case for the Kennet.

Trying to be positive I can confirm that there are certain reaches of both the above rivers which can produce both big fish and decent numbers of fish but these are the exceptions. Generally you either have to wait for perfect conditions or fish into darkness! To just turn up and start fishing and expect to catch is now no longer the case.

Although there are lots of different causes contributing to the decline of our rivers I believe that the main cause is the use of insecticides by farmers.

The EA is a government run department! What it should be is an independent body which is not solely answerable to our 'wonderful' politicians! The EA does as it is told and not necessarily what it should do!

 

[tigger]

A river cannot be "too clean", that really is utter bullshine!
Just because a river is clear doesn't mean it's clean.
A clean river will be full of natural food for fish and is the total opposite of being sterile.
The clarity of the water depends on what kind of ground the river and it's trib's are cutting through.

It amazes me how anyone can think a river or body of water can be too clean mg:.