AQUACULTURE AND FISHERIES BILL - MSP DEBATE

The note attached summarises SFCA's views on the aspects of the Bill that have most impact on coarse fish or coarse angling. If you would like to know more about our position you can read in full our response to the consultation paper that preceded the Bill, and our comments to the Environment and Rural Development Committee, on our website. We will be happy to provide hard copies of these or discuss any of the relevant matters in person, should you wish.

AQUACULTURE AND FISHERIES BILL – INFORMATION FOR MSPs

Microsoft Word Version - here

PART 2 - GYRODACTYLUS SALARIS: CONTAINMENT AND TREATMENT

We recognise the threat posed to salmon stocks by GS and in general support the measures put forward to deal with it. However, we are concerned about the impact of the steps that may be taken to contain or eliminate an outbreak. Coarse fish are neither affected by nor capable of hosting GS, but they would be wiped out as well if the afflicted species have to be eradicated in an infected river or catchment. Coarse fisheries might also have to be closed for long periods because of proximity to salmon rivers. In these circumstances Ministers should be under a statutory obligation to make compensation for “collateral damage” resulting from measures to contain or eliminate GS. 

PART 3 - FISHERIES

Angling methods and equipment

We agree with the proposed bans on the use of gaffs, tailers and pike gags; and the restrictions proposed on the types of keep nets or landing nets that can be used.

We support the proposed change to the statutory definition of ‘foul-hooking’, and particularly welcome the redefinition of ‘rod and line’ to allow for techniques that involve setting the rod in rests rather than holding it in the hand; and the use of more than one rod simultaneously. These changes are essential to enable coarse anglers to pursue their sport properly in Scotland.

Whilst noting the points regarding monofilament gill nets that emerge in the Committee’s report, we urge MSPs to consider outright prohibition of their possession and sale. These have absolutely no legitimate use, and are the “weapon of choice” for inappropriate culling and poaching alike.

Close times for freshwater fish

We do not believe the proposals in the Bill are necessary in respect of coarse fish. This might seem inconsistent with our concern for conservation, but there are aspects of spawning behaviour among coarse species in Scotland that make close times inappropriate and ineffective. Localised restrictions to protect sensitive spawning sites for particular species at certain times of year might be desirable, but national legislation is too blunt an instrument for that purpose. Conservation needs can and should be addressed by the adoption of appropriate rules by individual fisheries.

Freshwater fish conservation regulations

In principle this is a sound proposal, and we welcome it. However, we do not accept the suggestion in the Policy Memorandum that conservation can substantially be achieved by enabling Ministers to specify the baits and lures that may be used for freshwater fishing. It is not the use of particular baits and lures that poses a threat to coarse fish conservation: it is the irresponsible behaviour of a minority of fishery proprietors,as described below. That is what these Regulations should seek to control. If restrictions on any particular baits and lures are desirable – which we doubt – this should be left to the discretion of individual fisheries.

The most important step to be taken for the conservation of coarse fish is to protect them against deliberate culling, or management activities that adversely affect their environment. There is a long history of indiscriminate and ill-informed culling of coarse fish in Scotland, generally by the use of nets. At present the law exercises no control over this. Under Section 2 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 2003 any proprietor or occupier having a right of freshwater fishing may take any freshwater fish other than trout by means of a net or trap without the need for authority from any statutory body. This is plainly wrong.

We urge MSPs to introduce amendments to repeal Section 2 of the 2003 Act and replace it by Regulations controlling all removals other than by rod and line. Removals should only be allowed where there is a need for selective eradication to eliminate parasitic infection, disease, or newly introduced invasive species; or small-scale captures in the course of bona fide scientific study.

In addition, certain activities such as lowering water levels at certain times, or installing gabions that obstruct weedbeds and shallow inlets – are carried out either deliberately or without regard to the consequences, and can impede coarse fish from spawning or interfere with the hatching and growth of juveniles. In some instances, small lochs have even been drained to eliminate native coarse fish. We would also invite MSPs to amend the Bill to prevent such activities.

Use of live vertebrates as bait

We are dismayed to note that the Committee invited the Executive to put forward an amendment to the Bill, under the banner of conservation measures, that would ban the use of live vertebrates as bait. We have no objection to banning the use of live amphibians, birds, mammals, or reptiles as bait. However, to ban the use of live fish would be both superfluous and disproportionate to the risks it purports to address. We urge MSPs to reject any such amendment.

The rationale for a ban is understood to be that discarded or escaped livebaits are believed to have been responsible for the introduction of certain non-native species to a few waters in Scotland. This is unproven, but even if it was true it could only account for a tiny fraction of the inappropriate introductions in Scotland. There are several far more significant sources for this, including deliberate stocking by clubs, proprietors or individual anglers; escapes from aquaculture facilities; and discards from garden ponds. Yet the Bill does not seek to ban stocking, aquaculture or ornamental fishkeeping. Instead – quite rightly – it aims to prevent inappropriate introductions and transfers directly, by introducing legislation regulating fish movements. This is all that is needed.

The use of live fish as bait and the movement of fish between waters are entirely separate issues. However, if MSPs believe it is essential to further deter translocation by regulating the use of live fish as bait, the appropriate step would not be to ban this but to bring in provisions similar to those in Denmark which directly restrict the use of livebaits to fish caught on the same day from the same water where they are being used. SFCA would be happy to work with the Executive and other stakeholders to formulate the details of a Regulation along those lines, and to promote compliance.

PART 4 – MISCELLANEOUS

Unauthorised introduction of fish into inland waters

We welcome the measures proposed and would urge MSPs to support them.

Payments in respect of fish destroyed

This provision should allow for compensation for the tenants or owners of freshwater fisheries in the circumstances mentioned in our comment on Part 2 of the Bill regarding GS.

Payments for certain purposes

We welcome the measures proposed, and look forward to seeing these powers being applied extensively and judiciously to the benefit of fisheries management for all species in Scotland.

SCHEDULE OF MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

We welcome the measures in this part of the Bill that seek to improve the application procedure and operation of statutory Protection Orders. They are a step in the right direction. However they fall short of the action necessary to remedy the fundamental flaws in the law governing access for angling. A further phase of legislation will be needed; but more can and should be achieved at this stage and we would urge MSPs to press for further measures:  

• The status, composition and functions of the First Minister’s Consultative Committee, which advises Ministers when deciding whether to make a Protection Order, should be specified in legislation, which should ensure there is representation from all branches of freshwater angling.

•  Where a Protection Order is granted, legislation must make it obligatory for Liaison Committees to be formed, and specify their composition to ensure angling interests reflecting the full range of species in the waters concerned can participate.

• There are two anachronisms in the 2003 Act that give some proprietors the protection of criminal law against unauthorised fishing without the quid pro quo of offering any form of access whatsoever to anglers. One (S 11) relates to fishing in a “proper stank or loch”; the other (S 26) concerns certain rivers draining into the Solway Firth. These anomalies are inequitable, and serve no public policy function. We urge MSPs to amend the Bill to repeal Sections 11 and 26 of the 2003 Act.

END