Save the Broads Campaign

[Jon Cook PAC]

Anglers have launched a campaign to save some of Britain's most historic pike fisheries, after it was revealed they are under threat from plans to abandon coastal defences which protect parts of the Norfolk Broads.
Proposals to allow the Upper Thurne system to be flooded by the sea have been discussed by the Broads Authority, Natural England and the Evironment Agency.
If they are put into action, the 2,500-strong Pike Anglers Club fears Horsey Mere, Hickling Broad, the Martham Broads and Heigham Sound will be lost forever within a generation.
Whole villages and thousands of acres of farmland will also be flooded or turned into salt marsh.
PAC president Phil Wakeford said: "In 2007, we warned that historically important fisheries and nature reserves were at risk from proposals to cut sea defence budgets. Our worst fears have now been confirmed.
"While the Upper Thurne system is a unique fishery which has produced some of the biggest wild pike ever landed in the world, it also contains internationally-important nature reserves which are of key importance to over-wintering wildfowl.
"A number of villages will also be abandoned if this plan is given the go-ahead. We understand other options, including maintaining sea defences, were also tabled but rejected.
"We have today launched an online petition as the first stage of a campaign to save the Thurne and its broads. We call upon anyone who loves this unique environment to join us in the fight to save it."
Three record pike, each over 40lbs, were landed from the Thurne system, inspiring generations of pike anglers to visit Norfolk.
Pike fishing remains an important revenue earner for the county, along with bird watching.
The Pike Anglers Club has campaigned to protect the pike and pike fishing since it was formed in the Fens 30 years ago. Last year it helped villagers fight a successful campaign to save the Cambridgeshire Lodes.
The petition can be found on the Ten Downing Street website. More information will be posted as we get it on the Save The Broads website.


www.savethebroads.co.uk


http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/savethebroads/

 

[Davey boy (ACA)]

Signed...

Deadline today???

 

[Jon Cook PAC]

Good stuff Davey,

I think it ongoing, only started this moring.

 

[Davey boy (ACA)]

Point taken. I just read deadline 26th March, now I see its 2009!!

My mistake.

Just to note, anyone who votes - please make sure you reply to the link posted to your e-mail address. Otherwise you won't be added to the petition.

 

[PTnymph]

Added my name to it ages ago!

 

[Chris Bishop]

This gives an odea of the scale of the detsruction which will happen:

Broads flooding report

 

[Ian Cloke]

Done

 

[barry dix]

Never fished there but signed for the good of the area.

 

[Keith E]

Delaying the inevitable?

 

[Chris Bishop]

Who knows, but there needs to be a public debate about this - not men in suits meeting in private and signing away the Upper Thurne and its broads without any kind of consultation.

When parish councillors and the PAC forced the Cambridgeshire Lodes issue onto the news agenda via a similar campaign, they won a reprieve.

If we can convince them enough people care, it might make a difference here.

There are four options under consideration, two of which involve maintaining coastal defences, rather than simply abandoning the Thurne to the sea.

Perhaps it's time angling woke up to climate change, as we said it should last year in the PAC30 book. There are more than a million of us paying for rod licences, let alone our taxes.

If you care enough to say hold on a minute, there needs to be a public debate about this, sign up here.

 

[Chris Elwis999]

Signed the petition, but in the end it will come to figures on a balance sheet, if there is no financial gain in doing it, i.e income from tourism etc, they will let nature take its course.

 

[MarkTheSpark]

I'm not sure about this one. I agree totally with Chris B and his comment about global warming; but in time, trying to save the Broads and other low-lying coastal areas will be a Canute-like farce.

Of course the Broads are significant for fishing, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that they are man-made; yes, they harbour some important wildlife, but them so will the massive saltmarsh wetland we get if the sea is allowed to reclaim the Broads - maybe more so.

As anglers, we are also envirnmentalists, so we should certainly be campaigning for more wind farms, research into tidal power and the like. Going forward, we will also face serious water shortages if the UK doesn't build more reservoirs; now there's a campaign worth backing if you're an angler.

 

[Andy Frost]

Mark , speaking as someone who was born and bred here , we happen to like it just the way it is , both for the angling and the beauty that it is , we don't want the Broads replaced with resevoirs.

Many people have moved down here , for varying reasons , and I don't know of one who dislikes the surroundings and the way of life. Of course to keep the sea at bay is a huge financial undertaking , but there again so is managed retreat , the cost of an "inland" sea wall , would cost far more than building sea defences where they should be... on the present waters edge.

At present this hair brained scheme is only under consideration , I feel when the true weight of opinion is both heard and felt , that opinions will change.

Andy.

 

[MarkTheSpark]

Andy, I wish you and all those directly involved the very best; I'm not dispassionate about the plight of anyone whose home is threatened. Of course, the public debate should take place, and let's face it, if London were the area threatened by inundation, nobody would even be considering letting the sea take over.

The point I'm trying to make - probably quite badly - is that the Broads are just s symptom of a problem that will be rather a lot bigger, involving millions of refugees in places such as Bangladesh, and the complete loss of thousands of island communities. Three metres of extra seawater is a lot - more than creating a few more sea walls will hold back.

 

[blankety blank]

The cost of this will depend on whether fair compensation is paid to homeowners and landowners in the affected area.

If may be the case that this proposal is simply bowing to the inevitable.

It would be a shame if it were true though. As a Norfolk man, and a keen piker, the Thurne is a very special place. Although the river and its broads are not a patch on how they used to be, they have had lean times before and made comebacks. I harbour a hope that this will happen again in my lifetime.

I really hope that this is in the nature of a scare story to keep climate change at the top of the news agenda. It certainly got my attention.

 

[Chris Bishop]

It doesn't come down to the compensation issue. Joan Ruddock, the climate change minister, made it quite clear that there are no plans to review the 1949 ruling on this.

At present, it costs £1.5m a year to maintain defences between Eccles and Winterton.

EA sources tell us they reckon they could "hold the line" for at least another 50 years provided the funding is there.

One way of helping to keep the pressure up is to support the PAC's campaign by signing the petition - click here to sign up.

I'm sure more information about these proposals will come to light over the next few days. In the meantime, you can read most of the coverage on the various papers via the latest news link here.

We're still wading through the fine detail but I'll quote you one or two lines from the proposals:

"There is an argument for progressing straight to Option 4," the Natural England report said. Option 4 being abandoning coastal defences and allowing the Upper Thurne and its broads to be flooded by the sea.

"For it can also be argued that by selecting a radical option now, the right message about the scale and severity of the impacts of climate change is deleivered to the public.

"However, a decision to progress straight to Option 4 is likely to be met with strong political resistance and the up-front costs would be huge."

So are they really proposing to sacrifice some of our finest pike fisheries - let alone six villages, internationally-important nature reserves and thousands of hectares of farmland - to help get "the right message" about climate change across to the public..?

We won't sit back and let this happen. A lot of things are going on behind the scenes, as you might imagine.

The writing's on the wall now. Not so much about climate change, but where we stand as stakeholders in the environment of places like the Broads.

If you want your voice heard, sign up. It takes all of a minute or two of your time.

 

[David Marrs]

I've signed up Chris at the weekend - by the way, how you doing you old dog?

 

[Chris Bishop]

Very good, try and call you tomorrow....

 

[David Marrs]

Hey Chris, no worries mate - I left a msg on your mobile at the weekend, have you changed it? Glad to hear your v. good mate - been first season in years we didn't have a trip out, if you call early evening mate or I'll try and get you. All the best, Dave

 

[blankety blank]

for me, as soon as a politician starts using the expression "sending a strong message" or "sending out the right signal" it is usually a great big clue that he is talking bollocks. Others clues include "let me be clear about this", "the fact of the matter is this" and "in the interests of fairness".