ENVIRONMENT AGENCY GAMEKEEPER OR POACHER

During the course of my Ozzy carp thread Andy Nellist made a comment that the EA could be confused with being a poacher rather than the gamekeeper.
Can the EA be trusted to have to keep the best interests of our sport in mind when they have commercial interests in the stocking of fisheries?
Do we need a seperate body that guards the guardians?

I thought they done a good job as reported in last weeks Angling Times Lee, as regards the diseased fish.
From expierience, there are many strange things going on, that to us may seem odd and we do not agree with. But when we start to dig, things become a lot clearer.
Even so, it is still important to ask questions.

A Quango created by a Quango for another effing Quango. Does that make sense to you Lee

Not a lot does make sense to me anymore john but as others have said how can we trust a body that stocked 2,000,000 carp into our waters last year with the long term balanced management of our waterways.

quasi autonomous non governmental organisations, shortened to quango's.....they should have called them commitee's (for our skint/sponging/useless) relatives and prats. :O)

The EA didn't stock it simply allowed them to be stocked by granting s30 consents.

In 2002-2003 3.4 million course fish were stocked under s30 consents. Of those 1.875 million or 55% were Carp. Of the remaining 45% Roach were stocked more than any other species making up 8% of the total.

By no stretch of the imagination can that kind of imbalance be seen as positive for British Fisheries.

I have to agree with your final point, I do not like the road the EA is allowing market forces to take, I do not like it at all.

Andy
I hope you did not mind me "hijacking" your posted comment from the ozzy thread,it was one of the better ones and definatly one that should provoke some serious thought.

Lee when i lived in Australia all carp had to be killed as it was having an effect on their eco system and their indigenous species would suffer.I dont agree with killing fish they should never have been introduced Same with FIs and why oh why do these stupid fishery owners have barbel in still water what next grayling

That would cap it all wouldnt it the countries first manmade river stocked with trout grayling and barbel........that is too sick to comprehend, five years top side before its reality! (

Well the enthusiasm of the debate on the manner in which the EA chooses to do business and conduct itself is err,enthralling!........you bunch of apathetic ********, no wonder the RSPB can run rings round us at times!!

The Police "Police" themselves, the government vote for their own pay rises. I think I can say with confidence that any company policing itself will be biased, its mans natural (greed) instinct isnt it?

I think you'll find the lack of enthusiasm stems from the fact that most people think that the EA, on the whole, does a pretty good job in difficult circumstances.

It has NEVER stocked barbel into a stillwater at its own or your expense.

To my knowledge it doesn't breed carp at either of its fish farms, therefore it does NOT need to sell any carp.

If someone wants to stock 10,000 carp into his own water and a Fisheries officer is convinced that they will not upset the balance of any surrounding rivers or stillwaters and everything else being equal, they have NO rights to refuse granting a section 30.

I think you'd be a little p****d off if soemone told you what you could and couldn't stock in your own garden pond. It's no different for "commercials" except that the pond is bigger.

---------

All in - your picking a fight with the wrong people. However, if you want a greater insite into the working of the EA either get involved with a club at top level and see how they're prepared to help you. Alternatively - get a job with them.

Methinks though you speak from a generous lack of knowledge.

Lol, Methinks you could be right.The Ea only stock indigenous fish into rivers. But as woody said as far as section 30 consents go they have no right to stop anyone from putting fish into stillwaters if there adequate safegaurds against them escaping into surrounding rivers. They do a great job on the whole and i for one am extremely happy with what they do. I went to an EA seminar on stillwater fisheries management last week and thought it was really well put together and really educational. As a club we have recieved over 35K in grants from the EA in the last 14 months and they will and have given us assistance in a variety of ways. This can be from testing water quality or testing fish for disease, lending nets , boats, weedcutters and they also have a whole host of experts on hand who will come to your waters and advise on any problems you have. And all this is offered free of charge. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT ? BLOOD !

"methinks though you speak from a generous lack of knowledge"

Yes, and the point is?


Is ignorance a crime? No , but the acceptance of ignorance is! I will ask questions about subjects I do not understand or interest me, the original question was "can the EA be trusted with keeping the best interests of the sport in mind when they have commercial interests", not what types of good work they do within the sport of angling in general, that is not the question I put forward. The original question relates to the granting of s30 consents and the volume of carp that are being allowed to be stocked, accepted the EA at its farms may not rear carp but many other fish farms do, and these fish are being stocked with EA consent, are these fish a positive or a negative influence on the environment, Imbalance has to be a negative and therefore "in part" of its duties the EA is falling short.

Does the EA have the long term well being of fish at heart? I would argue not aways, the example of a commercial being stocked with 10,000 carp is all well and good but what if the ownwer wants to stock 2,500 barbel as well? Is it fair to allow the stocking of a fish purely on the whim of a fishery owner who only see's the stocking in relation to cash return.

Did the EA grant permission to stock the barbel into still waters? Yes, therefore the EA has stocked barbel into stillwaters.

Should the EA refuse permission of s30 consents in relation to still water barbel or other species that could be argued as noxious?, damn right they should!!

I do not want to fight the EA but I will ask awkward questions. At no point have I questioned the fantastic job they are doing on many hundreds of projects nationwide, the EA do a fantastic job, but could it be done better or should we simply accept decisions made by authoity without question. It reminds me of a bloke I saw on t.v a few years ago, intelligent professional who comanded the respect of the comunity and his peers, who's word was law and who's desisons were accepted without question. No body questioned this icon of authority in his work, he was doing a good job and worked tirelessly with the interests of the comunity always at his heart, bloody hell what was his name, its on the tip of my tongue......?






















Oh yes, thats it! Dr Harold Shipman.


Question Authority.

Getting a job with the EA, what a fantastic idea!

I wonder which departmentS are willing to pay me ?25,000?

I wonder which department needs some one with a professional chefs diploma, city and guilds qualifications in restaurant management, wine and spirits, hotel reception and house keeping and a college degree in food science?

errrrrrrr?

Oh well, I suppose I could take five years out to retrain, I am sure the bank manager wouldnt mind if i didnt pay the mortgage for a bit!!! ;o

Do you not think that option had'nt ocured to me already? LOL!

Another very important place to question authority is at local club level.

Stand aside little people! I'm here on official business.

Alright Baz, long time no read )

""can the EA be trusted with keeping the best interests of the sport in mind when they have commercial interests" "

That was more than a question, it was a statement, but explain to me where they have a "commercial interest", please?

They have a fish farm, true. It raises fish for release into natural environments and an excess is sold off privately. This helps to pay for the running of the operation, but it is NOT commercial. It is not there to make a profit to pay out to shareholders or business entrepeneurs.

So the foundation of your "question" is misplaced in the first place.

The EA (as far as I know) do not charge for issuing a section 30 sop they stand to make exzactly nothing from the deal. Yet you accuse them of doing it for commercial reasons.

Ah barbel. Well, you either agree with stillwater barbel or you don't. The EA cannot find any reason why barbel will not survive and thrive in a stillwater and so grant a section 30. It's as simple as that, but just because you (not a marine biologist) disagrees with the stocking of barbel doesn't make the EA wrong.

Barbel cannot thrive in still water as they cannot breed as for the other points may I refer the honourable gentle man to the answers I made some moments ago.

(Works for Tony Blaire)

"Commercial interest" is the financial aspect over what is actually good for the environment as a whole, are F1 carp, flouro fish, brown gold fish, sterlet and sturgeon or wells catfish good for our environment as a whole?-NO, are they given clearance to be stocked, yes. Commercial Interest.

"Commercial interest" is the financial aspect over what is actually good for the environment as a whole, are F1 carp, flouro fish, brown gold fish, sterlet and sturgeon or wells catfish good for our environment as a whole?-NO, are they given clearance to be stocked, yes. Commercial Interest.

What a load of crap. Commercial interest is runnning a business to make a profit pure and simple. What your saying makes no sense at all, the only money they make is in selling off surplus indigenous species mainly roach and rudd. So according to you because they profit out of native species they cannot be trusted to concidor the environment as a whole. Bullshit !! As for non native species this does not even fit into your own "flawed" arguement since the EA do not breed or sell non native fish so cannot be accused of profiting from such stockings.If they are given section 30 consents to be stocked it is because the people requesting the stocking have met the laid down requiremnts of such stockings. Unless you can prove beyond any doubt that the water to be stocked has no outlets or inlets for the fish to escape from and that the fish can be quickly and easily removed from said water then you will not get consent. Where these fish are known to exist illegally in waters that do not meet these requirements the EA make every effort to remove them . The answer to your question, as you phrased it is yes you can trust them because no commercial interest exists. They only consent to stocking after due consideration of ALL the facts. unlike you who just pick out the facts you want to prop up your flawed arguement.

To stock freshwater fish in the UK you need the consent of the EA under s30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975.

Whether the consent is given is down to policy.

The Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries review published in 2000 had some wise words to say on the subject of stocking policy:

?Fish transfers and stocking

46.

Introductions of fish for stocking purposes should continue to be regulated and stocking should be permitted only where it can be justified taking account of the benefits and disadvantages. (11 3.2)

47.

Guidelines on stocking, embodying the following principles should be established:

. stocking should be allowed only where there is no significant risk of ecological detriment to donor waters or receiving waters and where there is a demonstrable environmental, economic or recreational advantage;

. stocking should not normally be permitted in waters with established fish populations where it is not currently practised and has not been practised in recent years. However, stocking may be justified in such fisheries if it is needed in order to restore depleted populations or mitigate the effects of, for example, loss of spawning habitat;

. where recreational pressures justify stocking to sustain exploitation rates by anglers or losses due to predation higher than could be sustained naturally, decisions on consent applications should take account of the carrying capacity of the water involved and the management regime proposed for that water body;

. fish should not normally be introduced into waters outside the existing natural range of the species concerned or into new catchments within their existing ranges;

. reintroduction of fish species which are no longer present in a catchment should be permitted only after an assessment of the likely environmental effect of the reintroduction. (11 3.3)

48.

Where stocking is consented:

. the size, age, number and provenance of the stocked fish should appropriate to the ecological characteristics of the receiving water;

. the effectiveness and environmental impact of the stocking should be monitored;

. The Environment Agency should itself undertake periodic reviews of its policy on stocking consents, based on its assessment of the effectiveness of stocking and its environmental impact. (11 3.8)?

Against that I cannot see why on earth the EA allowed nearly 2 million carp to be stocked in 2002-2003. Nor why they would consider allowing the stocking of Australian Carp.