Carp virus leads to fishing ban

FISHING has been banned indefinitely at Haverhill's only free venue following a viral outbreak that killed scores of koi carp.
The ban has been introduced at the Castle Playing Fields pond after the virus broke out in late June, killing an estimated 50 to 60 carp.

Following the discovery of the dead fish the Environment Agency sent water samples for laboratory testing ? the results of which are now known.

A spokesman for St Edmundsbury Council, which owns the pond, said: "Tests have shown the fish were affected by the koi herpes virus, which can occur when the fish are under stress, for example when the weather is very hot and there is less oxygen in the water.

"We have closed the pond for fishing for the rest of the season to lessen the stress on the fish and will review the situation next year after taking advice from the Environment Agency.

"There are enough koi remaining in the pond for the population to build up its numbers again."

The disease has not affected the other breeds of fish in the pond, which include roach, gudgeon, rudd and crayfish.

Haverhill Park Rangers have now put up signs banning fishing and will visit the pond regularly to enforce the ban.

The loss of the pond means anglers will have to pay to fish at the flood park, which is licensed to Haverhill Angling Club.

Oh dear, as predicted on this site it looks as though the disease is being spread by keepnets and landing nets, because I'm willing to bet the local council dont buy new stock carp for a free pond. It should be a warning to everyone else and set the alarm bells ringing. Seems to me there are two options. Close commercial fisheries in case, or enforce rigid net bans with landing nets supplied on site. Problem comes when anglers fish a commercial one week and then use their nets on a club/free water the next.

Problem is the EA aren't coming clean about which waters are affected, on grounds this could be commercially damaging.

Try asking them under the Environmental Information Regulations, which are part of the Freedom of Information Act.

You get this:



Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,

Thank you for your e-mail regarding KHv and the disclosure of the
fisheries which have so far been infected.

Whilst the Environment Agency's policy is in favour of disclosing
environmental information under the Environmental Information
Regulations (1994), we can apply a number of exemptions where disclosur
may not be in teh public interest. In this case, we believe there is a
case for withholding the infomation on the grounds that to disclose
would have an adverse affect on our ability to carry out a fair
investigation.

If we were to disclose the details of affected fisheries, anglers may
choose to avoid fishing them to reduce the risk of transfering the
disease on wet tackle and other equipment. This would have an adverse
affect on those businesses. Seeing this, other fishery owners may choose
not to report fish mortalities to us, thus compromising our ability to
detect and control this (or even more serious) disease outbreaks.

We welcome the responsible intentions of anglers wishing to reduce the
risk of disease, but in practice, the relative risk posed by transfering
viruses on angling tackle is negligible in comparison to moving
susceptible fish species. That said, we always encourage fishery owners
to adopt basic disinfection measures at their waters to reduce the risk
still further of transfering KHv or other fish diseases.

Regarding your request for Section 30 consents and other
reports/correspondence, I will need to seek advice on disclosure of this
information as it may include personal details.

I hope this is helpful and clarifies why we are taking this approach.
If you are not satisfied with our decision not to supply the requested
information you can contact us to ask for our decision to be reviewed.
If you are still not satisfied following this, you can then make an
appeal to the Information Commissioner, who is the statutory regulator
for Freedom of Information.

We have recently made a press release on the KHv outbreaks. This can be
fount at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/news/1434313

Yours sincerely,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

This is the mental bit in case anyone might have missed it:

If we were to disclose the details of affected fisheries, anglers may
choose to avoid fishing them to reduce the risk of transfering the
disease on wet tackle and other equipment.

OWE GAWD,were all banging our heads against a brick wall with that mentality god help the fish.

6 fish in my pond have died with the same symptoms, koi, commons, 2 goldfish, 3 others have been left blind, my son bought 5 small koi 6 weeks ago they never looked healthy to begin with, they all died over a period of two weeks then the others followed exactly the same, lethargic, patchy mucus,horrible.its to be hoped the outbreak doesnt spread to far. wishfull thinking.

Where did he get them from and what part of the country are you in..?

Wilmslow garden centre Cheshire

That's scary as rest of the outbreak has been in the south-east.

Yes but its been imported with koi i suppose they are separated and sent all over England i suppose.

I understand this is the line some of the angling media have been trying to stand up but the EA are saying stockings from multiple sources are implicated.

Having said this the fish involved could have been imported from one place and then distributed to various fish farms to be grown on.

Exactly.

Chris re: the below statement

"If we were to disclose the details of affected fisheries, anglers may
choose to avoid fishing them to reduce the risk of transfering the
disease on wet tackle and other equipment."

I admit it looks and sounds daft but is it?

The statement says why anglers might want to avoid the fishery, if indeed we were to 'find out' which fisheries were affected!

Also because it is not a notifiable disease, the EA are not legally bound to tell, and so if they were to tell I would bet there is a good chance that they (the EA) would end up in court being sued for loss of earnings by the fishery owner/s, not to mention the numbers of newly affected fisheries who would keep schtum and avoid being named!

Not sure is the honest answer. The whole situation's totally new.

People know this disease is cropping up at commercial/carp fisheries in one part of the country.

The authorities say a handful are involved, the fishing media understand it to be many more.

They ring the EA and it refuses point blank to comment beyond a press release, name waters or put any kind of dimension on the problem.

I can't see how the fishery owner could sue anyone if the media were correct and didn't say there had been an outbreak where there hadn't.

You could say it's potentially more damaging for all commercial fishery owners not to have affected waters named, as it's likely to smear them all as possibly being affected.

It's a bit like having a story in the local paper which says John Smith from Liverpool was found guilty of rape yesterday, without saying Smith, a 33-year-old astronaut from Y-fronts Avenue, Toxteth; because otherwise you've libelled every other John Smith from Liverpool by saying they're a rapist.

I think the EA has panicked and played the wrong card here. Instead of being open and keeping what's going on in perspective, they're trying to sweep what anglers want to know - which waters are affected - under the carpet.

The argument this could commercially damage them doesn't hold water anyway, as surely as soon as there's an outbreak it's water closed.

The argument this could commercially damage them doesn't hold water anyway, as surely as soon as there's an outbreak it's water closed.

Err No Chris! Not from the anecdotal evidence I?ve been hearing over the last two years.
It is alleged that some fishery owners have been netting dead carp out before the paying punters arrive to fish in the morning.
As KHV was not a notefiable disease (it is now, or soon to be so) they allegedly just restock and pretended nothing was wrong.

I take it someone in the fishing media is making a complaint to the IC over their refusal under FoI/EIR.

Case precedence needs to be set on this, as it has far wider ramifications for Environmental information.

While such matters rest with the indicisive EA we could be facing an epidemic. "The end is nigh" said Ron and the old sage could I fear be right. The Dept of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food need to take hold of this issue with EA advisors on water quality/restocking etc afterwards. The above dept would treat affected fisheries in the same way as farms affected by Foot and Mouth. First they are put off limit and secondly the existing stock is destroyed. It may also be nesessary to close commercials/club lakes if stocked with carp in a specific area to prevent the spread of the disease for say 3 months, however if it is as virulent as suggested it may prove impossible to stop without calling a temporary halt to still water angling, because it is anglers who are unwittingly carrying the disease from location to location.
Keeping the whole business quiet and hoping it will go away is fatal. Only about 20% of anglers read the angling press so are aware of whats going on. This potentially devastating outbreak will be exacerbated by ignorance and bloodymindedness by some.

And another thought on this. If some of you recall I raised the issue of 10% antibiotic contained in Swim Stim pellets for Koi Carp. Will this save fish from this disease or leave them more vulnerable to infection?

I will if I get the time Phil, it has to go through internal review first.

I have won a couple on review on PAC-related matters.

What has far more significant ramifications is the Govt deciding they're going to start restricting FOI.