Remove Red Tape

Water & Marine: Freshwater fisheries

These regulate angling and include provisions on conservation and sustainable exploitation of freshwater and migratory fish (salmon, trout, eel); and the use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture.

We want to hear your views on how we could reduce regulatory burdens, and improve implementation of these regulations to ensure that we can deliver enhanced access to freshwater fish stocks whilst safeguarding delicate ecosystems in the most effective way.  For example, could the Salmon and Migratory Trout (Prohibition of Fishing) Order and Amendment Orders and Variations; the Salmon and Migratory Trout (Restrictions on Landing) Order and Amendment Orders and Variations; the Salmon and Migratory Trout (North-East Atlantic) Order; and the Salmon and Migratory Trout (Enforcement) Order be merged into one instrument to encourage compliance?

Visit the Water and Marine theme landing page here.

Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:

• Should we scrap them altogether?
• Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
• Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
• Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
• Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
• Should they be left as they are?

11 comments on “Water & Marine: Freshwater fisheries”

1. Colin Chapman on March 27, 2012 at 4:28 pm said:

   I support the new catch and release legislation for the rivers Wye, Ely and Taff and said as much in the consultation held in 2011. I would have liked to have seen tackle restrictions to accompany the legislation and proposed that only single hooks should be used on lures and flies and that circle hooks should become compulsory for worming. These common sense measures which would have prevented fish from being gut hooked or being handled for an undue length of time during unhooking were deemed to be a matter best left to clubs.
   Part of the explanation from the Environment Agency for this stance was that the current political regime was against the introduction of “unnecessary” legislation and that stakeholders could decide how best to manage that aspect of their fishery.
   Predictably my club voted against the compulsory use of single hooks leaving a situation where we are able to use the least fish-friendly hook design on a river where the salmon add sewin populations are at such a critically low level that they should all be returned.
   Measures to restrict the type of tackle used for rivers where catch and release has been imposed have been introduced in the Irish Republic and the USA and could have been included as proposals in the initial consultation to introduce a catch and release byelaw, instead we’re left in a situation which is nonsensical, and allowed to use damaging tackle on the very fish the Environment Agency and any reasonably intelligent angler want to see returned unharmed.
   If situations like this become commonplace as a consequence of the slavish adherence by government departments and local authorities to this populist legislation then watch out Britain. It was deregulation in the financial sector that brought us to the banking crisis we’re likely to suffer from for many years to come, I just hope that some bright spark doesn’t come up with any wonderful new ideas to deregulate some of the sensible legislation which protects our migratory fish.Comment Tags: Catch and Release / Tackle restrictions
2. Allan Cuthbert on March 21, 2012 at 2:44 pm said:

   It seems to me that the current obsession with changing , altering or amending fisheries regulations have one common thread: to save money whilst attempting to create the illusion of consultation.
   What is need is not more regulation or changes to legislation: we need more enforcement.
   The decline of our fisheries is a national disgrace. It would seem that the legislators are fiddling whilst our fish stocks burn (sic). We need many many more warranted enforcement staff who are motivated to do their jobs from a genuine concern for our fisheries. We have to reverse the process of depleting staffing levels to the extent that enforcement staff are more concerned about their future that the stocks they are charged with protecting.Comment Tags: enforcement
3. Mabel Cheung on March 20, 2012 at 2:15 pm said:

   Hard won legislation to protect freshwater, coastal and marine habitats and the environment (such as the Environment Act 1995; The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003 and Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009) are essential to protect them from harm. Such legislation is also vital to ensure that the environment and biodiversity is maintained for knock-on benefits to human health, recreation and fishing-related industry. Therefore, it is imperative that legislation such as these must not be weakened or removed.
4. M.Williams on March 13, 2012 at 12:54 am said:

   Criteria for improvement should be the preservation of migratory fish in UK rivers. I would like to see greater protection given to spawning fish than under SAFFA 1975 – specifically including them into the Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981 would be a start. Closing all rivers with migratory fish during spawning to all river users would be easier to administer.Comment Tags: spawning migratory fish
5. M.Williams on March 13, 2012 at 12:54 am said:

   Criteria for improvement should be the preservation of migratory fish in UK rivers. I would like to see greater protection given to spawning fish then under SAFFA 1975 – specifically including them into the Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981 would be a start. Closing all rivers with migratory fish during spawning to all river users would be easier to administer.Comment Tags: spawning migratory fish
6. M.Williams on March 13, 2012 at 12:53 am said:

   Criteria for improvement should be the preservation of migratory fish in UK rivers. I wouls like to see greater protection given to spawning fish then under SAFFA 1975 – specifically including them into the Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981 would be a start. Closing all rivers with migratory fish during spawning to all river users would be easier to administer.Comment Tags: spawning migratory fish
7. Red Tape Challenger on February 20, 2012 at 9:10 am said:

   This is an interesting suggestion. Do others share this experience? Do others think a voluntary approach would work?Comment Tags: salmon
   • Peter Hebard on February 22, 2012 at 2:07 am said:

     in my involvement in Balanced Seas Stakeholder Groups with both amateur Sea Angler, Sea Angling boat Skippers and Commercial fishermen around the Isle of Wight, as well as with the Dorset Coastl Forum Fishermen out of Weymouth and Lyme Bay, with Southern IFCA, and case studies of Scallop Fishing on the Isle of Man and France and exchanges with those managing marine conservation areas in the US, the experience is always the same.

     If you empower local fishing communities to manage their own stocks and reassure them that outsiders will not cheat, they will do their best to manage their own stocks. What triggers some to cheat on their own policy is when Top-Down Agencies with little or no local knowledge impose regulations that locals know will not work , effectively dis-empowering them from taking control of their own destiny.

     In the Solent and Dorset,t he new Southern IFCA, chaired by Anthony Jensen, an expert in fostering more shellfish, it has been obvious for some time that it is far better to engage with commercial fishermen than to treat them as pirates and disreguard their expertise extensive. At the MMO’s open conference in Plymout late last year and Coastal Futures this January , many speakers were saying the same thing and it appears in Scotland fishermen are commissioning their own science, enforcing their own no-take zones and managing their own stocks. Even the Marine Conservation Society wanted to change its name to Marine Management.

     The only discordant note at both conferences was from Natural England Marine who reject all local fishermen’s evidence, and are now spending Taxpayers money commissioning independent evidence on MCZs (they could save cost by commissioning fishermen to help) and demanding IFCAs focus on enforcement , which we all know will not work.
     We are very fortunate that Richard Benyon has already seen the benefits of working for fishermen rather than against them

     This government espouses the benefits of not only reducing red tape but of empowering local communities develop and manage their own “bottom-up” strategies. All that is needed is to implement the principles of Localism and remove the power of central agencies to interfere and impose misguided regulations.

     Such Agencies are far better employed conducting fundamental research into better management methods and spreading best practice around the country. I have run workshops with government research agencies such CEFAS encouraging them to use their world- class expertise to positive effect, focusing on helping fishermen expand their businesses etc as well as prevention of adverse effects. Many of the agencies were very keen to do so but consultants, who make their money from the paperwork were less enthusiastic.

     In case studies of all aspects of marine and coastal management around the UK and the rest of the world the experience is unanimous. Voluntary collaboration between all stakeholders works and enforcement of regulations never does an d further more imposes extra costs on all sides..

     In the marine and coastal environment there are many “win-win” opportunities, that emerge when all those active in the same environment get together .

     For example in the first workshop on the Marine Policy Statement, we had examples of Cable Layers creating shellfish habitat and helping marine archeologists, Aggregate Dredgers and Wind Farm Operators creating artificial habitat and nursery areas for fish catches, Ferries dredging rivers, Dredgers restoring saltmarsh, – effectively the “Big Society ” of the Marine Environment and you cannot get much bigger than UK waters. All the big players wanted to be seen to be green and helping the little ones such as under 10 fishers.

     However, the prime obstacle preventing many of these obvious and often zero cost constructive collaborations was the the “top down ” agencies applying the rapididly increasing and overlying cobwebs of EU /UK regulation and the “precautionary principle” over zealously.In many case they were demanding often irrelevant and very costly “Tick Box” Impact Assessments, rather than allowing pilot trials, albeit accompanied a sensible and focused risk management plan.

     I have less information on salmon fisheries inland but there are several examples of water company’s being asked and agreeing to re-think , re-time their water releases from reservoirs to aid salmon runs and assist natural dredging of harboursComment Tags: fisheries, management, voluntary
   • Guy Mawle on March 12, 2012 at 11:56 am said:

     Some thoughts re: Peter Hebard’s contribution:

     1. Local management may indeed be appropriate for local stocks such as shellfish but many fish stocks are international requiring international management.

     2. Fishermen should be expert at catching fish but does that make them expert on fish population dynamics, especially of international stocks?

     3. People generally act in response to their personal social and economic situation. So while there may be a role for voluntary collaboration in the exploitation of a common resource, enforcement is needed to stop cheats and/or freeloaders.
     Without enforcement, everyone loses because some individuals’ gain. See work of Ostrom (Nobel Prize winner) and others on the ‘tragedy of the commons’.

     4. [ Deleted text]

     5. This is not to suggest that international fisheries management agreements are always effective but is that because politicans, like individuals, tend to respond to their own political and economic pressures rather than following biological advice?

     6. As regards salmon fishing in inshore waters, effective legislation has only been made available in the last couple of decades to prevent sea fishermen taking salmon and sea trout. e.g. the well-documented closure of a massive and long-standing illegal salmon fishery in the Severn Estuary. Without the relevant national and local legislation, threatened stocks would be at even greater risk.Comment Tags: enforcement common resource local salmon
8. Anthony G Britton on February 17, 2012 at 7:33 pm said:

   We in Cumbria on the R Eden are subject to rules which require every female salmon caught on rod and line, to be returned to the river AFTER the 9th of september. During the consultation the general feeling within local anglers was that regardless of the outcome of any alleged consultation the EA had already decided what they were going to impose on us . i and many others urged the law makes to set in place a voluntary return of these fish and to TRUST the anglers to do this. we already have a catch and return effort in excess of that hoped for by the EA. inevitably some hooked and fairly landed females DIE before they can be returned. A dead hen salmon can not spawn or contribute anything to the river. As a regular fisher during this time it grieves me to see dead females floating past to appease the EA who will not trust us to use common sense . And they back up their bad legislation with a swingeing fine.Comment Tags: returning dead Hen salmon.
   • Guy Mawle on March 12, 2012 at 12:32 pm said:

     It’s true that voluntary catch-&-release is all that is required on some rivers and dead salmon are clearly no benefit to the future stock. But if the taking of dead salmon is permitted, can you be sure that all your fellow Eden anglers will do their best to ensure that salmon don’t die? The Environment Agency hasn’t published the 2010 Fisheries Statisics yet (!?) but the 2009 figures show that the rate of release in August and even September was below even the national average. The Eden is designated a Special Area of Conservation for salmon but has not been compliant with its spawning target for several years now, though assessed as ‘Probably not at risk.’ Even now, might Eden anglers do more voluntarily to minimise the number of salmon that die? For example, avoid using multiple and barbed hooks, and lures that have a high deep-hooking rate, such as Flying Cs. Could they make a greater effort to follow the catch & release guidelines?Comment Tags: salmon catch and release