6,114 rivers in england and wales

and only 5 classified as pristine

75% fail to meet good quality standard
117, or 2% are most inhospitable to wildlife
724 in poor condition
3,654, or 60% are in moderate condition
25% are healthy enough to support thriving ecosystems

those are some of the figures I've tracked down, but temper your opinions with the question, who sets the standards, bearing in mind that roach, gudgeon etc can be excluded from environmental assessment studies

category 1 and 2 pollution records that I've found for 2010-2011;

anglian 452
welsh 250
northumbrian 89
seven 349
southern 452
thames 3679
yorkshire 335

30,000 permits to discharge were granted to water companies

for 20 years calls for a reduction in abstraction on the river kennet have been agreed as necessary, but nuffin has been done, and there must be loads more info out there
if my info is wrong I apologise, put me right and post up the correct figures, and if you wanna help me understand the big picture, then dig around yourself and post up your findings for all to see

Trust me on this; those figures will improve, even if you don't notice any improvements while on the bank.

Take my local river Cherwell. The EA conduct endless electro surveys but on stretches that offer less than optimal conditions they consistently turn up NO fish but is that evidence used in any way to ascertain the river's eco status, errr NO!

For the purpose of grading the ecological status of about 18 miles of river, they chose a 200m prime gravel riffle, nicely fringed with over hanging trees and bushes...
..Indicitive of the river, yes











but only about 5% of it!

Rivers have been improving for several decades now - generally reduced pollution, improved management for wildlife etc. Theres very few that are pristine or superb ecological quality, but thats because we are a crowded island.

I remember big names in angling in the 1970s virtually writing off rivers for the future - the future being gravel pits and stillwaters. Fortunately this trend was reversed, but with the legacy of more stillwater fisheries as well.

chub_on_the_block said:

I remember big names in angling in the 1970s virtually writing off rivers for the future - the future being gravel pits and stillwaters.

Click to expand...

Not for nothing did some fella named Walker write a book titled Stillwater Angling in, er, 1953...

well the Don and the Rother in Sheffield have certainly improved in recent years

And I have seen rivers that once held only sticklebacks (or, at their very best, a few well and truly roughed-up, stunted roach and dace and battered bream) in my own childhood produce "This can't be happening..." barbel to over 16 pounds and chub to 7 or so for me. Sewage pollution was the problem then, now we have cars, roads, "lifestyles" and many more millions of us...

As the population increases, the water tables and thus river flows will drop and there will be less to dilute any 'problems'. The Wandle is often cited as an example of what can be done; it's almost 100% effluent these days. Cleanish effluent and the fish can survive (and thrive), not, and they are all wiped out. There's nothing to dilute any accidents. It's coming to a river near you, or it may have already arrived.

There are simply too many people in this country and to do my bit to ease the situation (if only temporarily) I'm off fishing in Normandy tomorrow.:w

Amushroom - what do the figures refer to in the opening post?

I'm particularly alarmed that the Thames has around 10 times as much of whatever it is (I'm assuming it's not good) than the other rivers you listed.

What part of the Thames would that refer to? I'd think the figures would be radically different for the upper, middle, city and estuary parts of the river.

I've only been living around here for around 4 years, so I don't know what the upper part where I fish was like historically, but it seems OK to my untrained eye.

When I was a kid, I fished the river Gade downstream from Croxley paper mills. The water was tepid warm even in the depths of winter and foamed and bubbled alarmingly. I think there's been quite a bit of improvement in pollution since the 70s and 80s.

Do we really want or need Pristine Rivers ?

Shouldn't rivers be a little coloured at times and have natural rafts and barriers.

maceo said:

I'm particularly alarmed that the Thames has around 10 times as much of whatever it is (I'm assuming it's not good) than the other rivers you listed.

Click to expand...

See:

http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/coarse-fishing/292587-forty-million-tons-sewage-per-year.html

nice one chaps, I to am wary of believing these statistics, wot criteria etc was used

I was hoping that someone smarter than myself might recount further scientific studies, rather than individual observations, although they are of merit and appreciated
one major concern is that although a river/waterway may now be listed in one of the nondescript categories, it may have suffered a catastrophic incident previously, seen the gene pool wiped out, and restocked with a gene pool from somewhere else
meaning over the long term we could see a situation where roach etc become more like simmo carp
I've been trying my hardest to track down more details of river pollution, in particular rivers that have suffered a total devastation to wildlife, since the period of privatisation, meaning they support no life and are restocked

anyways keep it all coming folks, its all contributing to my education and mucho appreciated

Maybe we should get our own river watch going on here and name and shame both condition and bad river/canal/waterway management.