SDAA Barbel investigation Environment result

alanthealan

New member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
For all those that have been following the SDAA barbel story this was posted On Southport.gb.com

SDAA Barbel investigation Environment result

After speaking to the committee of Southport and District Anglers Association it became apparent the club secretary Mr Malcolm Bannister was the individual who had taken the decision to introduce the Barbel into the River Crossens.

However there was some evidence that he did attempt to notify the Environment Agency of his intentions by the way ofa letter. Unfortunately this letter went missing and the introduction went ahead without consent. Therefore, Mr Bannister was sent a warning letter, and informed that the Agency would insist on the removal of the illegally introduced fish.

The reason for this is that barbel are not native to the River Crossens catchment and will therefore have an effect
upon resident fish populations either directly or indirectly through impacts on the aquatic ecosystem, by means of:
direct predation competition with indiginous fish for food and cover spread or introduction of fish disease or paracites alteration or degridation of required environment.

The club has agreed to remove as many of the fish as is possible. The Agency will be carrying out this task at the clubs cost and will be carried out later on in the year when water temperatures are lower and more suitable for this type of activity.

Find out more about the Environment Agency at
www.environment-agency.gov.uk

Onthespot - your online reporter

Do you have a story to tell? Please text or phone 07930717137 or email press@southport.gb.com
 
B

BAZ (Angel of the North)

Guest
It sounds as if he got off lightly. That is the kind of thing a chancer would do. In the meantime, who actually pays for the E.A. to remove the fish? The members do.

To say that the E.A. did not recieve the letter as it must have got lost, is not good enough. Consents do not work that way. There "Has" to be a reply before stockings of any kind take place.
 

Ray Daywalker Clarke

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
12,106
Reaction score
6
Location
Herts
Its not just a letter Baz, he has to have the right forms, section 30 i think that is, fish and the water they are going into has to be checked to make sure everything is correct.

The reason given by the EA for not allowing the stocking of Barbel is interesting, there are plenty of rivers that have been effected by barbel stocks.
 
B

BAZ (Angel of the North)

Guest
Section 30 That's the one Ray. That is what the club should have had before doing anything. Any club would know that. That is why I said he got off lightly.
 

Ray Daywalker Clarke

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
12,106
Reaction score
6
Location
Herts
Yes HE has Baz.

But the club have'nt, it will cost them a fortune paying the EA to try and remove the fish.

I wonder what action the club will take against him, if any.
 

alanthealan

New member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
they won't take any action against him. Wanna bet that he will try and ban more people before the end of the year. Wouldn't surprise me if he didn't even with draw his resignation
 

Ian Whittaker

New member
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
Can't really sack him if he's a volunteer .

Plus I think the whole affair is a bit fishy as the EA have "stocked" barbel into a couple of small rivers not a million miles from the sluice.
 
B

BAZ (Angel of the North)

Guest
I was thinking more in the way of being prosecuted for illegally stocking fish.
 
A

Andy "the Dog" Nellist (SAA) (ACA)

Guest
The EA's record on management of stocking and illegal introductions is extremely poor.

Unfortuanately Barbel are now widely available and I have no doubt that illegal stocking is happening all over the place.

What kind of message does it send out when the EA do not prosecute someone for stocking without a s30 non-indigenous fish?

Anuyone who does this should be prosecuted and should should pay the costs of removal.

I suspect the inaction may stem from embarassment as to how the Barbel were obtained.
 

honslow

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
2,417
Reaction score
3
Where did they come from? Which unscrupulous b*****d of a fish farmer supplied them without S30 paperwork? That's the more worrying question!
 

honslow

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
2,417
Reaction score
3
Agreed Ray. But you don't expect the Agency to turn a blind eye do you? We'll name and shame all three parties - Bannister, the supplier and the EA. As it happens, this EA response was dug up by me and passed on. I'm awaiting a further update from them.
 

paul martin 7

New member
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
Agreed Ray. But you don't expect the Agency to turn a blind eye do you?


Why not Greg, they do when it comes to illegal fishing!
 

honslow

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
2,417
Reaction score
3
Nothing illegal about removing rod caught fish from a river unless it's forbidden by the controlling club/party and the fact is well publicised (which is difficult to do if the culprits can't read English). To be fair to the Agency, if illegal netting is taking place they get there, sooner rather than later.
If fish are being nicked from a lake then it's theft and the responsibility of the local Police force, nothing whatsoever to do with the EA.
However, fish transfers are very much their responsibility and this incident gives out the message that it's okay to move fish illegally. As I said, the real concern is the supply side. All suppliers should be routinely named and shamed every time they blantantly ignore Section 30 rules. That way we'd soon cut out the cancerous minority!
 

paul martin 7

New member
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
I was refering to illegal fishing in the close season Greg. (or fishing without a rod licence in season) I know I'm deviating from the original post.
 
Top