Are our waters too clean?

binka · Jul 30, 2014

This is a question which has sprung to my mind after a post in Greenie's thread.

Without doubt EU Directives have had an influence and profound effect on purer water quality here in the UK but despite all the (and I don't doubt) scientist backed recommendations following, most likely, endless consultations has this really been well thought out all the way along the line?

We as Anglers have seen the changes in our river systems over the years, some for the good and some for the bad but what's the consensus?

Do you think that our waters are better now for cleaner water?

As previously written I for one think that purer, cleaner water denies the local eco systems of the bacteria and micro organisms that depend on a less purer water system and in turn eradicates an important part of the natural food chain, hence on many occasions my own personal opinion of "sterile" looking rivers.

And... who are and why are these people supposedly benefitting from cleaner rivers?

Have Cormorants really moved inland not because the sea is becoming devoid of prey fish but perhaps because our inland waterways have attained a clarity which makes it very easy for them.. an interesting coincidence maybe given the period of time in which they have become an increasing nuisance?

There's a few links here for anyone with a few hours to spare...

The EU Water Framework Directive - integrated river basin management for Europe - Environment - European Commission

cg74 · Jul 30, 2014

IMO it's not a lack of bacteria and micro organisms in treated sewage, it's more to do with the water is lacking in minerals which would be present if the water was added in a more natural manner; via aquifers.

I'm not saying a little of potential pollutants like phosphates and nitrates won't improve things, they are used to boost agricultural plant yields.

greenie62 · Jul 30, 2014

Hey Binka,
You're just too quick lad - I'd just posted the following on the original thread - so I'll re-iterate it here - it was prompted by your comments on the 'mucky' Trent of the 70s & 80s.

My first site of the Trent in the early 60's at Beeston made me think of a Bubble Bath with the masses of foam floating in the air! I couldn't believe there'd be any fish alive in there - 5 minutes was all it took to whisk out a 1/2 pound roach! I wouldn't like to vouch for its health however - or how it fared on its return!

Comments regarding a healthy water having a bit of muck in it to provide the nutrients for fish food remind me of my grandad's comment - when I looked dubious of a bit of mucky fruit he gave me to eat - it was not pristine enough to sell to the customers - "we've all got to eat a bit of muck before we die!" - didn't really appease me - I couldn't help but feel there may be a causal link between eating the muck and dying!

binka · Jul 31, 2014

greenie62 said:
Hey Binka,
You're just too quick lad - I'd just posted the following on the original thread - so I'll re-iterate it here - it was prompted by your comments on the 'mucky' Trent of the 70s & 80s.

My first site of the Trent in the early 60's at Beeston made me think of a Bubble Bath with the masses of foam floating in the air! I couldn't believe there'd be any fish alive in there - 5 minutes was all it took to whisk out a 1/2 pound roach! I wouldn't like to vouch for its health however - or how it fared on its return!

Comments regarding a healthy water having a bit of muck in it to provide the nutrients for fish food remind me of my grandad's comment - when I looked dubious of a bit of mucky fruit he gave me to eat - it was not pristine enough to sell to the customers - "we've all got to eat a bit of muck before we die!" - didn't really appease me - I couldn't help but feel there may be a causal link between eating the muck and dying!

Duly replied to

---------- Post added at 00:12 ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 23:55 ----------

cg74 said:
I'm not saying a little of potential pollutants like phosphates and nitrates won't improve things, they are used to boost agricultural plant yields.

That's an interesting point Colin... A local former club water always used to "suffer" from the run off of adjoining, higher farmland and as such was thick with blanket weed in the summer yet the fish and the fishing positively thrived if you could find a clear area or were prepared to rake a swim.

Nowadays the land lays fallow after the farm has sadly gone and the fishing has deteriorated...

Back to taking away/meddling with the habitat perhaps eg. removing a food source?

Edited to add: Sorry, I might be pedalling this along a bit but to me which also emphasises the importance of cover and water colour as opposed to clean water clarity in relation to fish stocks and land based predators in particular?

laguna · Jul 31, 2014

Are cormorants forced inland due to over fishing at sea or are/were they now attracted by the abundance of fish in our clear(er) rivers?
In Norway cormorant is a traditional game bird. Each year c. 10,000 cormorants are shot to be eaten, unfortunately 1,286 Minke Whales too (this year) and this barbaric ritual each year from the Danes Blood in the water: Graphic pictures shed light on annual whale kill in the Faroe Islands dating back 400 years | Mail Online still, I suppose all that blood will feed an ecosystem.... I wonder what life diversity would be like without Man's selective interference?

Peter Jacobs · Jul 31, 2014

Mod Hat Off, ie Personal comment:

I think it is only fair Chris to point out that the hunting of Minkie Whales in Norway is done under official agreement from the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission (IWC)

It is also worth noting that the figure of 1,286 is a quota and that in actual fact, annually since 1994, the annual kill has been significantly lower that the quota. (something that P*T@ conveniently omit from their articles b.t.w. . . . . . )

The official estimate from this organisation for Minkie Whales in the Northeast Atlantic and around Jan Mayen zones is 108,000 so it is only 1.19% that are harvested annually, and is considered sustainable.

I lived and worked in Norway for 15 years and to be honest have never heard of Cormorants being eaten, and never saw them on a menu either.
I am not doubting your figure of 10,000 just saying that it must be a local (Northern Norway) think and not one that is country-wide.

All the time I lived there (Oslo) I never even saw a cormorant, in fact the only times I saw them were on the odd occasions when I fished in the Skåne area in Sweden where they live close to the coast.

Finally, I think is somewhat unfair to place that link of the slaughter in the Faroe Islands in juxtaposition to your comments on Norwegian Whaling and Cormorants as if to attempt guilt by association . . . . . . . . . modern whaling achieves virtually instantaneous death and is miles removed from the ancient harpooning methods.

no-one in particular · Jul 31, 2014

Just out of curiosity, how does this affect chalk streams? I have visited these, the Itchen for example. The water I believe comes up in a spring and this water has spent years permeating through chalk and is pure and clean. It always looks pure and clean when I have visited it. Yet, it has abundant weed growth, more than I see in most rivers; whole swathes of it right across the river.

My second question, and my apologies as its a bit off subject but, it has just come to mind- I had a friend years ago who is passed on now. He always said the Common Cormorant was not meant to be on the protected list. That when the list was made it was meant to be some other species of the cormorant, a rarer one; and I cannot remember what he called it. But, when the list was drawn up , they just made a mistake and called it Cormorant. Whether there's any truth in this I don't know.

thecrow · Jul 31, 2014

Our river water might look clean but is it? Anti Biotics, contraceptives, drugs to affect peoples mood swings and lord knows what other things that don't effect the clarity of the water but do effect the quality of the water are not filtered out at sewage plants, does this invisible pollution effect the rivers ecology from the very bottom upwards?

greenie62 · Jul 31, 2014

does this invisible pollution effect the rivers ecology from the very bottom upwards?

Short answer Crow - YES!
TheBadOne could give you chapter and verse on this and he's already given us some of the detail in his previous posts on the GrassCarp thread.

There's a big difference between the apparent cleanliness of water and whether it is chemically and biologically 'clean'! A lot of it is to do with 'quality' and the 'fitness for purpose', e.g. whether the purpose of the water is for: drinking, irrigation, supporting fish, animal or plant life, or providing hydrostatic pressure for structural integrity of land systems - and thats without linking this to 'quantity' in terms of flood/drought damage, etc.

In terms of fish - there's quite a spread of water qualities which affect whether they will survive in a water as opposed to thrive - and these vary depending on the age/stage of the fish, e.g. some of the 'invisible' pollutants you mention may not affect fry but have an effect on the breeding viability of mature fish.

In terms of fish food - again, there's a spread of qualities which have an effect on the invertebrate population or the environment on which they rely.

Just think about the problems that 'commercial fisheries' have with the amount of fish food and excreta having an effect on the water in terms of quality, e.g. turbidity, UV penetration, etc - OK on a river these effects aren't absent - just diluted and spread - appearing 'cleaner'!

Binka - what have you started here? This one could run and run!

mg:

hyperdrive · Jul 31, 2014

What about the gay fish from all the oestrogen going in

greenie62 · Jul 31, 2014

What about the gay fish from all the oestrogen going in

Now, now hyperdrive!
Haven't you had your Diversity Training yet? (Mods - sign him up for the next course!)
If you had - you'd know you should embrace all fish irrespective of their gender-orientation - even Bream!

chub_on_the_block · Jul 31, 2014

In my opinion clean is good. In rivers most "colour" comes more from rain than rather than algae or suspended solids from sewage in the water. When low many should be clear rather than turbid in my opinion - and have weed growth as appropriate.

I suspect there are still big issues with pesticides/mollucides/insecticides etc. I know that in many rivers theres so few snails now compared to the past - and i mean a lot less (sometimes 1/1000th or at best 1% in numbers terms). However, Signal crayfish are most probably responsible. This issue plus the cormorants are MAJOR factors why roach, dace, minor species etc struggle in my opinion. And when the big chub that have fared well on the signals die of old age....

laguna · Aug 1, 2014

Peter Jacobs said:
Mod Hat Off, ie Personal comment:

I think it is only fair Chris to point out that the hunting of Minkie Whales in Norway is done under official agreement from the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission (IWC)

It is also worth noting that the figure of 1,286 is a quota and that in actual fact, annually since 1994, the annual kill has been significantly lower that the quota. (something that P*T@ conveniently omit from their articles b.t.w. . . . . . )

The official estimate from this organisation for Minkie Whales in the Northeast Atlantic and around Jan Mayen zones is 108,000 so it is only 1.19% that are harvested annually, and is considered sustainable.

I lived and worked in Norway for 15 years and to be honest have never heard of Cormorants being eaten, and never saw them on a menu either.
I am not doubting your figure of 10,000 just saying that it must be a local (Northern Norway) think and not one that is country-wide.

All the time I lived there (Oslo) I never even saw a cormorant, in fact the only times I saw them were on the odd occasions when I fished in the Skåne area in Sweden where they live close to the coast.

Finally, I think is somewhat unfair to place that link of the slaughter in the Faroe Islands in juxtaposition to your comments on Norwegian Whaling and Cormorants as if to attempt guilt by association . . . . . . . . . modern whaling achieves virtually instantaneous death and is miles removed from the ancient harpooning methods.

On soap box and off topic perhaps Peter, My own personal opinion... I realise the PETA propaganda machine reverberates like Chinese whispers but it still doesn't excuse such high quotas or sanctioned wholesale slaughter of whales no matter what the 'official' figures are or who is responsible Imo.
Without wishing to go over the same ground that tiinker and I had previously discussed, it is my belief that the practice to hunt and drive whales to slaughter is simply barbaric, unnecessary and outdated and cause stress to sentient living creatures.

I got the cormorant figure from Wiki, the original article cited is copyright from The European Commission and prevents reproducing without permission.
Link here: http://www.intercafeproject.net/pdf/REDCAFEFINALREPORT.pdf (0.17)
With regards Steve's original question on clear water, the report above suggests that; (being mindful not to quote verbatim see 0.14) reduced eutrophication decreases cormorant numbers? which to my thinking (and unless I have misunderstood), clear water should, in theory make it easier pickings for predators?

hyperdrive · Aug 1, 2014

greenie62 said:
Now, now hyperdrive!
Haven't you had your Diversity Training yet? (Mods - sign him up for the next course!)
If you had - you'd know you should embrace all fish irrespective of their gender-orientation - even Bream!

I don't know what you mean, I thought gay meant carefree and merry or bright and cheerful,
oh and I don't mind the odd bream session just a pain cleaning the net after that's all, me I love all fishes

The bad one · Aug 1, 2014

hyperdrive said:
What about the gay fish from all the oestrogen going in

The correct term is intersexing

And if you dig deep enough on this site you'll find something on the subject I wrote over 10 years ago. Black Kettle once said to me "you frighten me with that knowledge Phil!" There are over 250 known compounds entering our rivers every minute of every day that causes intersexing. Collectively known as Endocrine Disruptors Substances.

But hey a bit of muck never did anyone or anything any harm did it?

Peter Jacobs · Aug 1, 2014

laguna said:
I got the cormorant figure from Wiki, the original article cited is copyright from The European Commission and prevents reproducing without permission.

I was aware of that document as I'd used it previously for research, the report was only commissioned by the European Commission, and the preface note clearly states:

"This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission and in no way anticipates any future opinion of the Commission"

The same report also states clearly that:

"Around 10, 000 adult Cormorants (of the ‘Atlantic’ carbo race) are hunted legally as game in Norway outside the breeding season. "

While I respect your views on whaling I don't wholly agree with you and as I noted earlier, Minke whales are the only legally hunted species.
Catches have fluctuated between 487 animals in 2000 to 592 in 2007. For the year 2011 the quota is set at 1286 Minke Whales The catch is made solely from the Northeast Atlantic Minke whale population, which is estimated at 102,000.

It is readily seen that while the quota might be approx 1½% of the total estimated population in that area, the Actual catch is less than 50% of the quota and is considered as wholly sustainable.

nicepix · Aug 1, 2014

I've been visiting a few places in the Charente Valley this week. The water clarity is unbelievable. Every pebble visible in a 12 foot deep run. Probably why there were no fish to be seen in open water. But stop and stare at the weed beds for a while and there are signs of life. Same under rafts and overhanging trees.

So, in answer to the original question; Yes. In my opinion cleaner rivers do affect angling in as much as in daytime and especially in times of bright light anglers have to search out shaded areas and present their baits with more finesse than in waters with less clarity.

hyperdrive · Aug 1, 2014

The bad one said:
The correct term is intersexing And if you dig deep enough on this site you'll find something on the subject I wrote over 10 years ago. Black Kettle once said to me "you frighten me with that knowledge Phil!" There are over 250 known compounds entering our rivers every minute of every day that causes intersexing. Collectively known as Endocrine Disruptors Substances.

But hey a bit of muck never did anyone or anything any harm did it?

I've had a dig and found something that I presume was written by you but not using the same name, interesting read thank you.

As they say, where's there muck there's money

binka · Aug 1, 2014

laguna said:
With regards Steve's original question on clear water, the report above suggests that; (being mindful not to quote verbatim see 0.14) reduced eutrophication decreases cormorant numbers? which to my thinking (and unless I have misunderstood), clear water should, in theory make it easier pickings for predators?

Chris that's exactly one of the points I was making... nothing scientific on my behalf and perhaps I should research it more before questioning (in a perfect world lol) but hasn't the inland cormorant population risen sharply over roughly the same period that our waters have seen a fairly dramatic improvement in clarity?

Or maybe not perhaps... but then I don't recall seeing that many cormorants going back to the eighties when my river was very visibly muckier in respect of water colour and certainly not in the vast numbers that there appears to be nowadays.

Possibly a consequence of clearer water making for easier hunting, particularly in the case of a sight predator?

Does anyone in the know have figures for inland cormorant populations in relation to improving water quality of the same period, it might help to establish or dismiss any possible link?

cg74 · Aug 1, 2014

laguna said:
With regards Steve's original question on clear water, the report above suggests that; (being mindful not to quote verbatim see 0.14) reduced eutrophication decreases cormorant numbers? which to my thinking (and unless I have misunderstood), clear water should, in theory make it easier pickings for predators?

Yes I agree that clear water will make easier for predators to hunt but like I alluded too in my first post "clear" or for the want of a better term "clean water" should provide the natural fish stocks with ample weed etc for them to hide in and the harbourage for insects for those fish to feed upon.
This is why it would be expected that a mountain stream would have limited fish both in terms diversity and stocking levels.
Whereas it'd be expected that a lowland mineral-rich chalk stream should be a highly diverse environment in terms of plant life, insects and subsequently fish.

It's worth bearing in mind the current in vogue term; clean/cleaner is a very nondescript term, that is used primarily for EA spin.
A river can be stuffed full of phosphates, yet if the nitrate level is marginally reduced it's "Cleaner" - Not healthier, only "Cleaner".

Are our waters too clean?

binka

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

binka

Guest

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

binka

Guest

Well-known member