Fisheries Legislation Proposals - SFCA Response
Microsoft Word Version - here
Attention Fisheries Bill Team
The Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs
20 Feb 2006
Dear Sirs,
AQUACULTURE AND FISHERIES BILL – PROPOSALS FOR CONSULTATION
I am responding on behalf of the Scottish Federation for Coarse Angling (SFCA)
to the above consultation concerning the draft provisions for new legislation in
Scotland.
SFCA is the governing body for the sport of coarse angling in Scotland. Our
members include all the significant Scottish coarse angling clubs, covering the
full spectrum of coarse angling pursuits. SFCA promotes and facilitates the
coaching of young anglers; organises competitive coarse fishing in Scotland;
manages the Scottish international match team; and maintains the Scottish record
fish list for coarse species. Several of our member clubs run their own
fisheries, and SFCA itself is also actively involved in fisheries management
through participation in certain scientific Fisheries Trusts, and in the
Lowlands Canals Angling Partnership which is responsible for angling on the
Forth & Clyde and Union canals. We represent coarse angling interests in
dialogue with other stakeholders at national and catchment level, among other
things by participating in the Freshwater Fisheries Forum Steering Group (and
its management structures sub-committee) and in the Angling Tourism Development
Group.
With some important exceptions we support the proposals in the paper and the
direction that it maps out for Scottish fisheries legislation. We welcome this
opportunity to comment in detail, and our responses to the questions posed in
the paper are appended accordingly.
SFCA has no objection to our response being publicly available. I am happy to be
the named contact point, but I would wish that my home address be kept
confidential. We will be delighted to discuss this paper and any other relevant
matters with Scottish Executive officials at any time in the future. The
Freshwater Fisheries Branch already holds my contact details in connection with
the Forum Steering Group, and may also use them for this purpose.
Yours sincerely
Ron Woods
Policy Officer, SFCA
APPENDIX – SFCA REPLIES TO QUESTIONS IN THE CONSULTATION PAPER
PART I – AQUACULTURE
NB - SFCA has no locus to comment in relation to marine aquaculture or on
matters that purely affect salmonid populations. Our responses to Questions 1 –
25 should be read as referring only to aquaculture in freshwater sites, and / or
only to matters that have a direct or indirect impact on coarse fish populations
or coarse angling.
Chapter 1 - Regulator
Q1: Do you agree that FRS/SEERAD would make the most suitable Regulator?
Yes. It is difficult to see how these proposals could be given effect without
the creation of a statutory Regulator, and FRS / SEERAD is the obvious choice
for that role.
Q2: Should there be an enabling power to permit the option of charging in the
future?
Yes. Significant funding will have to be devoted to this function. Whilst it is
reasonable for some of that to come from general taxation, the aquaculture
industry should be expected to bear a substantial proportion of the cost. It
might also be possible to create incentives for good practice by weighting the
contribution against companies that do not meet minimum standards.
Chapter 2 – Parasite control
Q3: Should the Bill make provision for parasites in general, or restrict
itself only to sea lice?
Yes. SFCA has no direct interest in relation to sea lice, but it seems to us
short-sighted to make provisions relating only to regulate in respect of that
particular parasite. Athough at present there is no aquaculture industry in
Scotland that rears coarse fish species, that situation could change in future;
and in any event there is a need for controls to cater for the risk that other
parasites prevalent among farmed salmonids might harm wild coarse fish
populations.
Q4: Should the Regulator have both advisory and enforcement functions?
Yes.
Q5: What powers should the Regulator have as regards the inspection of data
and investigation of potential parasite problems on farms?
Yes.
Q6: Should the Regulator have the power to direct treatment?
Yes.
Q7: Should the Regulator have the power to arrange treatment through a third
party contractor where a direction to treat has not been complied with?
Yes.
Q8: Should the Regulator have the powers to direct treatment for notifiable
diseases?
Yes.
Chapter 3 – Containment
Q9: Should escapes proposals apply to all farm types outlined above?
Yes. Escapes from aquaculture facilities are the most significant vector for
inappropriate, unmanaged, and damaging introductions into wild fisheries across
Scotland. If aquaculture installations are to continue to be allowed to exist at
all in freshwater, they must be subject to stringent regulation involving
rigorous standards of containment. If this avenue is not closed off, there would
be little point in implementing the other proposals for controls over fish
movements and introductions contained elsewhere in the paper.
Q10: Should shellfish farms and restocking hatcheries be exempted?
We make no comment in relation to shellfish farms, as these are invariably
marine-based. We are not convinced that restocking hatcheries for wild fish
should be exempted. The risks posed by escapes of fish reared for restocking are
no different from those where the fish are reared for food. And all the issues
about disease, parasites and genetic integrity that underpin the proposals
elsewhere in the paper regarding controls over fish movements and introductions
are equally applicable to fish held in hatcheries. Whilst we would encourage a
sympathetic “light touch” approach to the regulatory oversight of small-scale
club-run hatcheries, we believe that to exempt any form of fish-rearing facility
from regulation would create an unacceptable loophole.
Q11: Do you agree that the Regulator should have the powers to inspect and
direct with respect to preventing escapes?
Yes.
Q12: Do you agree that the Regulator should have a role in improving
containment to prevent fish escapes?
Yes.
Q13: Should the Executive introduce a strict liability offence for escapes
from fish farms?
Yes.
Q14: What elements should be addressed in containment plans?
We do not profess the technical knowledge or practical experience to comment on
this.
Q15: Do you have any views on the above proposals [concerning the proposed
notification procedure for fish escapes]?
We do not profess the technical knowledge or practical experience to comment on
this.
Q16: Do you agree that the Regulator should have powers to investigate
escapes and suspected escapes from fish farms whatever the sources of
information?
Yes.
Chapter 4 – Data collection
Q17: What data, in addition to the production survey data, do you believe are
appropriate to submit?
We do not profess the technical knowledge or practical experience to comment on
this.
Chapter 5 – Fish farm relocation
Q18: Do you agree that financial assistance be given to fish farm operators
to relocate where there is a clear environmental benefit in doing so?
No. This would be inappropriate use of public funds. Fish farms are commercial
businesses that have an impact on the environment of the body of water in which
they are situated. If that impact is detrimental, they should be ordered to
close or relocate, and must be expected to meet their own costs in the same way
as would any other business responsible for causing any other form of pollution
or environmental degradation.
Q19: Do you agree that the Scottish Ministers should have the powers to close
fish farms where there is a clear public interest to do so and where owners are
not in a position to relocate?
Yes
Q20: Under what circumstances might it be useful for the Scottish Ministers
to have discretionary powers to pay compensation to fish farm operators?
It would be reasonable to make compensation available for eradication in the
event of a disease outbreak where the relevant farmer was not at fault and
perhaps not even infected.
Chapter 7 – Fish movements – fish farms
Q21: Do you agree with the need to regulate live fish movements out of, and
between, marine fish farm management areas?
SFCA has no locus to comment on this issue.
Q22: Do you agree there is no general need to restrict live fish movements
between freshwater fish farms?
We do not profess the technical knowledge or practical experience to comment on
this.
Q23: Is the proposed power to bring in a national standstill provision in the
case of a novel disease appropriate?
Yes.
Q24: Should the Regulator be empowered to licence the transfer of fish by
well boats in Scotland?
SFCA has no locus to comment on this issue.
PART II – FRESHWATER FISHERIES
Chapter 8 - Gyrodactylus salaris (GS)
As a general observation, we would suggest that whilst the current focus on GS
is understandable, it may be best to take this opportunity to frame the
legislation more widely. It would be desirable to provide for the possibility of
similar measures being available to combat an equally serious threat to any
species or group of species arising from some other parasite or infectious fish
disease.
Q 25: Should the Bill include enabling powers to eradicate GS where the
circumstances are appropriate?
With some regret, we acknowledge that this option has to exist as a last resort.
However it must be just that. There will no doubt be a need for immediate
implementation of appropriate containment measures in the event that GS is
detected in a waterway; but the power to eradicate stocks must not be used in
haste. Collateral damage to unaffected species, whether wild or introduced, must
be avoided where that is possible and kept to a minimum where it is not. The
measures described in this proposal should only ever be implemented after
careful consideration of the alternatives and thorough consultation with
stakeholders relevant to the area in question – including coarse angling
interests where these exist.
If any eradication programme becomes necessary, the Executive must also be
liable to meet the cost of restoring the resource to the position it was in
before the eradication works compensation. In this context, “the resource”
should be taken to include the stocks of all species – whether or not of
commercial importance to the fishery proprietors, and whether or not directly
affected by GS.
We are particularly concerned to see that para 64 envisages the eradication of
fish stocks from “all inland waters…. in catchments where the presence of GS is
confirmed.” We do not agree with this aspect of the proposal. Our understanding
is that the GS parasite cannot survive on pike, perch or cyprinid species. There
are numerous stocked and natural stillwaters in Scotland that contain only
coarse fish and are unconnected to waterways with populations of migratory
salmonids. Whilst there may be grounds for applying containment measures to a
whole catchment in the event of an outbreak of GS, there is absolutely no
purpose to be served by eradicating the coarse fish in waters unconnected to the
source of the infestation. The legislation should be framed in such a way as to
avoid that happening.
Q26: Should the Scottish Ministers have the power to apply chemical
treatments to watercourses for the purpose of eradicating GS?
Yes, subject to the comments at Q 25 above.
Q27: Should the Scottish Ministers have the power to apply chemical
treatments to freshwater farms for the purpose of eradicating GS?
Yes, although the issues raised in the third paragraph of our comments at Q25
above would apply equally to any fish farm which was engaged solely in rearing
coarse fish.
Q28: Should the Scottish Ministers have the power to authorise the removal of
dead and moribund fish from watercourses for the purpose of eradicating GS?
Yes.
Q29: Should the Scottish Ministers have the power to remove dead and moribund
fish from freshwater farms for the purpose of eradicating GS?
Yes.
Q30: Do you agree with the proposal for the Scottish Ministers to impose
standstill notices?
Yes. However, such notices should be clearly time-bound and subject to
appropriate review with provision for stakeholder consultation.
Q31: Do you agree with the powers to erect barriers and close fish passes?
Yes.
Q32: Should Scottish Ministers and their agents have powers of compulsory
access?
Yes.
Q33: Do you agree with the power to require clearance of fish farms in the
circumstances?
Yes, subject to the comments against Q25 & 27.
Q34: Should powers for mandatory disinfection of recreational gear be
introduced?
Yes, although the efficacy of such measures is questionable and it is difficult
to see how they could be applied universally unless similar steps were
implemented at the same time by the Environment Agency, as most angling visitors
to Scotland are either English residents or enter the UK through England.
Chapter 9 - Amendments to rules on access
The underlying principle of protection in return for reasonable access to pursue
responsible angling is fundamentally sound; but from a coarse angling
perspective Protection Orders are a failure. They have not achieved their key
objective of opening up a wider range of access. Only on Loch Awe does the
current PO promote the coarse angling opportunities available in the fishery and
encourage the conservation of coarse fish species. Conversely, on some waters
covered by POs access to pursue coarse fish is denied altogether. In many
others, coarse angling is tacitly discouraged or made almost impossible in
practice by restrictions on baits or methods. In addition, there are protected
waters where the proprietors cull coarse fish or make it a requirement of
granting permits that all coarse fish captured are killed. However, the changes
proposed in Chapter 9 are positive and we keep an open mind as to whether the
system is capable of repair.
A number of other changes beyond those set out in the consultation paper should
also be made to the law on access for angling and the provisions that govern the
granting and operation of Protection Orders. We recognise that a further phase
of legislation (as discussed in Part III of the paper) will be necessary to
achieve the optimum linkage between access and properly funded, sustainable
management. Nevertheless, we believe that more can and should be achieved by the
forthcoming Bill. Most of what we have in mind in that context is contained in
our replies to Questions 35 – 39 below, but there are two further items on which
we wish to submit comments.
Firstly, we note that the paper refers in para 78 to the First Minister’s
Consultative Committee, but contains no specific proposals as to the status,
composition or functions of that body. This Committee is a crucial component of
the system. To aid transparency it ought to be given a formal constitution, and
its make-up must be prescribed to ensure that it reflects the appropriate range
of interests. This should not be taken as criticism of the integrity or ability
of those who presently serve on or oversee that Committee, nor are we alleging
that coarse angling interests are not currently represented. However, it is
unacceptable that the Committee exists only by virtue of ministerial preference
and that the inclusion of SFCA, and indeed other relevant organisations, lies in
the gift of officials and the Chair of the Committee. Governing bodies, and
perhaps certain other legitimate interest groups, must be assured of the
opportunity to participate as a matter of right.
Secondly, we note that the proposals in the paper do not address two key
anomalies in the current legislation. One of these is the provision in Section
11 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 2003
whereby a person who fishes without legal right or written permission in a
“proper stank or loch” (defined as ‘a stank or loch the fishing rights in which
are owned by one person’) is guilty of a criminal offence. In effect, this
affords the sole proprietors of such lochs the same legal protection as groups
of proprietors covered by a Protection Order, but without the quid pro quo of
obliging them to offer any form of access whatsoever to anglers. In a similar
vein, Section 26 of the same Act makes it a criminal offence to fish without
permission for freshwater species in certain rivers draining into the Solway
Firth, again without any obligation on the part of proprietors to offer
reasonable and responsible access. These anomalies are both inequitable and
unacceptable. The protection of criminal law should be afforded only in return
for reasonable and responsible access. This principle ought to apply equally to
all fisheries regardless of the locality or the pattern of ownership. Sections
11 and 26 should therefore be repealed or amended to correspond with the
provisions relating to access that apply in Protection Order areas.
Q35: Do you agree with the proposal to make Liaison Committees mandatory?
Yes, but with the added proviso that the legislation must make it obligatory for
the composition of Liaison Committees to encompass angling interests reflecting
the full range of species present in the water to be covered by the Order. There
are presently several Orders (eg, on the Tweed & Eye) covering waters with
substantial coarse fish populations in which the existing Liaison Committees
lack representation from our branch of angling. It is no coincidence that access
for coarse angling in such areas is more difficult than elsewhere, and is more
often than not impeded by unjustified restrictions on fishing methods.
Q36: Do you agree with the proposal to remove the requirement to advertise in
the Edinburgh Gazette?
Yes. It is an expensive anachronism that adds absolutely no value in the crucial
process of ensuring that interested parties know the application has been made
and is under consideration.
Q37: How else should protection orders be publicised, beyond the requirement
set out in the 2003 Act that the applicant give notice in such other newspapers
as the Scottish Ministers direct?
There should be two strands in the process of publicising such applications –
“proactive” notification of certain prescribed consultees; and a “reactive”
element whereby the application is made widely available for comment by anyone
who believes they have an interest.
The mandatory consultees must include the governing bodies for game, coarse and
(if tidal waters are affected) sea angling. It may also be appropriate to
include certain other potentially interested parties, either voluntary
stakeholder organisations or public bodies like SEPA, SNH and relevant local
authorities.
The reactive dimension of consultation would be eminently suited to a Web-based
solution. We suggest that a suitable section in the SEERAD pages of the Scottish
Executive website should be established and maintained for this purpose. This
would set out each proposal in full detail (with accompanying maps) and might
usefully also provide a facility to collect comments, objections or suggestions
about the proposal from interested parties. Such a facility could be extended to
supply a range of important information about each Order once it has been
granted – such as fishery rules, PO boundaries, the location of permit outlets,
and the minutes of Liaison Committee meetings - and could also offer excellent
opportunities for gathering feedback on their operation.
However, not all anglers have ready access to the Internet, and even those who
have may not be inclined to monitor the SEERAD site on the off-chance that a
Protection Order application is made for a water in which they are interested.
It remains important, therefore, that some measure of press advertising should
take place to draw attention to applications for new Orders or significant
variations / extensions to existing ones. It may suffice to leave Ministers
their current discretion to choose which publications they direct applicants to
give notice in. There may be grounds to specify large-readership national
publications such as the Daily Record, but we recognise that would be costly for
applicants. Provided the other safeguards mentioned above are in place we would
not object to the use of local papers and/or the angling press for this purpose
instead. If the angling press is to serve as a channel of communication,
however, it will be vital to announce proposals in a range of publications to
ensure news reaches all sectors of the angling community.
Q38: Do you agree with the proposal that protection orders need not cover
contiguous fisheries?
In principle we support this proposal. It is absolutely vital that only those
proprietors who offer reasonable and responsible access should benefit from the
protection given by an Order.
However, we have some concerns that the existence of discontinuous and possibly
fragmented Protection Orders could lead to confusion among anglers as to the
statutory status of a particular riparian stretch. In particular, there could be
ambiguity over the position regarding fishing from boats on any loch which was
partly included in an Order and partly not. We would urge the Executive to give
careful consideration to how such ambiguities can be avoided; and to ensuring
that the boundary of the protected zone in any waterway is clear, well
publicised, and signposted on site.
Q39: Do you agree? [Q 39 concerns the proposals set out in paras 80 & 81
regarding the removal of fisheries from the prescribed area in a Protection
Order for non-compliance]
As noted in response to Q 38 above, we endorse the principle that a Protection
Order should only be granted or maintained where a fishery offers reasonable and
responsible access. We have considered whether the existing “all or nothing”
arrangement might actually serve to promote access by creating peer pressure
from compliant proprietors in the PO area that could lead to positive behaviour
by all. However, there are ample counter-examples in existing PO areas to show
that this does not happen consistently in practice. We therefore welcome the
proposal that the Executive should assume the power to withdraw the protection
of an Order from individual fisheries where they do not comply with the access
arrangements on which it is based.
We are nevertheless concerned that the threat of removal from the scope of a
Protection Order may not represent a sufficient incentive for proprietors to
offer reasonable and responsible access. If more robust sanctions cannot be
introduced within the scope of the current Bill, we call upon the Executive to
consider doing so in the long term, and to make all these provisions applicable
to the Solway rivers and to “common lochs or stanks” in the same way as for
waterways covered by Protection Orders.
Q40: How should buyers find out/be told that protection orders affect their
property and be alerted to what their responsibilities are?
We agree that steps should be taken to pursue this objective, although we are
unsure how best it can be achieved. If there is to be more flexibility in the
granting and suspension of Protection Orders, the position with regard to a
particular riparian stretch may well change from year to year. Any process to
register the existence of an Order at the point of purchase of the property
would therefore need to operate on a “real time” basis to avoid inaccuracies.
Chapter 10 - Fish movements – wild fish
Q41: Should the Bill make provision to regulate the movement of fish into
inland waters?
We support this proposal in principle, and agree that the best way to proceed is
to introduce Regulations analogous to Section 30 in England and Wales governing
the movement and introduction of all species. It must be stressed that any new
regulations should not act to prevent responsible stocking and introductions of
healthy coarse fish into waters where they are already present, or can
reasonably be expected to co-exist with other inhabitants. Many coarse species
do not reproduce well in Scottish conditions so there must be scope to maintain
and enhance stocks in existing coarse fisheries and to develop new ones. It
should be noted that there are no commercial fish farms supplying coarse species
in Scotland. The legislation must therefore permit the acquisition of stock fish
from appropriately health-certified sources in England & Wales. In addition, the
legislation should also make provision – subject to appropriate health checking
and the suitability of the recipient location - for the movement of fish from
sources other than commercial suppliers. Otherwise it would prevent the rescue
and relocation of stocks where waters are being drained or turned over to
commercial fisheries.
We are however concerned to see that the Executive does not plan to regulate the
movement of “ornamental fish kept indoors or in a garden pond”. We appreciate
that regulation might cause inconvenience to ornamental fish keepers and the
industry that serves them. Nevertheless, this leaves a substantial loophole,
both because it provides an exception from otherwise universal control over the
movement of all live fish, and because escapes and discards from ornamental
sources are a significant vector for unwanted introductions here and elsewhere
in the UK.
Chapter 11 - Miscellaneous amendments
Q42: Do you agree with the proposals to permit the use of rod rests?
Yes. We unreservedly support the redefinition proposed in para 91.
This is essential for coarse anglers in Scotland. To pursue our sport we need to
be able to employ techniques that involve setting the rod in rests rather than
holding it in the hand; and to be able to use more than one rod simultaneously
where appropriate. On fish welfare grounds it will be important for the
legislation to place considerable stress on being in close attendance to
maintain proper control of the tackle in this situation.
Q43: Are the limits on the number of rods correct?
Yes. We support the proposals in para 91, which would bring Scottish coarse
anglers into line with their counterparts in England and Wales.
It should be noted that trolling baits and lures behind a moving boat is
practised for predatory coarse fish species as well as for salmonids. We
appreciate that to allow a different number of rods to be used with the same
technique depending on the type of fish being sought would create an undesirable
anomaly, and we would have no objection if the legislation placed a general
two-rod limit on trolling in freshwater regardless of the species pursued.
Q44: Do you agree with the ban on live vertebrates as bait?
No. We totally oppose this, and reject the premise on which it is based. The
proposed ban is both superfluous and disproportionate to the risks it purports
to address.
There is no necessary connection or causal link between the use of live fish as
bait and the movement of fish between waters. These are two entirely separate
issues. The appropriate way to prevent inappropriate introductions and transfers
is by legislation directly regulating fish movements. Such legislation is
proposed in Chapter 10, and has the support of SFCA. If enacted, that
legislation will leave anglers liable to criminal prosecution if they transfer
fish without permission, whether they are being moved for use as livebaits or
for any other purpose. No additional regulation is required.
The paper asserts that discarded or escaped livebaits have been responsible for
the introduction of some species to a number of waters in Scotland. There is no
hard evidence for this, but even if it is true it could only account for a tiny
fraction of the spread of locally non-native species and the dilution of genetic
identity among established species in Scotland. There are several far more
significant sources:
- formal stocking by clubs and proprietors;
- escapes from aquaculture facilities;
- escapes and discards from garden ponds and other “ornamental” sites;
- deliberate but unauthorised introductions by individual anglers.
The paper rightly proposes to regulate fish movements and introductions per
se, (though it unaccountably exempts ornamental fishkeeping from those
provisions) but in no case other than that of livebaiting does it seek to ban
outright the activity associated with that vector for introductions. There is no
justification for treating the use of live fish for bait differently.
Not only would such a ban be unjustified and inequitable; it stands no chance of
achieving anything apart from damaging the sport of responsible anglers who
source their bait from the water in which they are fishing. Irresponsible
individuals who might be inclined to break the law by moving fish without
authority are not likely to be deterred by the fact that they would also be
contravening a ban on using them for bait. In fact, a ban could be
counter-productive. It would create profound resentment among predator anglers,
and as with any legislation that is widely perceived as unfair and unreasonable,
this would undoubtedly influence the level of compliance. In addition, there is
a considerable risk of that resentment tainting attitudes to other aspects of
fisheries legislation and manifesting itself in more general resistance to the
positive moves that the paper proposes.
The use of live fish as bait is a legitimate sporting method for catching
various predatory species. In Scotland these are mainly pike and perch. In some
circumstances it can be almost the only effective way to catch those species. It
is permissible in England & Wales, and in most other parts of the world. Banning
this technique would undoubtedly deter some potential visiting anglers at a time
when there is a general thrust to promote coarse angling tourism, within which
pike angling is Scotland=s greatest attraction. The draft RIA is therefore wrong
in saying (page 71, paras 147 & 150) that the costs would be “negligible” or
that such regulation would not restrict the ability of firms to choose the
quality and range of their products. In fact, a ban on the use of live fish as
bait would undoubtedly affect the income of tourism businesses that depend in
whole or part on visiting predator anglers. It would restrict the range of
opportunities that a proprietor can offer potential customers and thus damage
the commercial competitiveness of Scottish predator fisheries.
If the Executive believes it is essential to increase controls on the use of
live fish as bait as part of the drive to reduce or eliminate unauthorised
introductions, the appropriate course of action would be to bring in regulations
(as in Denmark) which directly restrict livebaits to fish caught on the same day
from the same water where they are being used. This would produce the results
the paper aims to achieve, but without alienating the entire community it seeks
to regulate. It would place Scottish anglers in a slightly less favourable
position than their English counterparts – who can use the Section 30 provisions
to move bait fish in some circumstances – but it is justifiable and
proportionate to the risk it seeks to address. SFCA would be happy to work with
the Executive and other stakeholders in formulating the details of alternative
legislation along those lines, and in doing our utmost to promote compliance.
Q45: Do you agree with the proposals to prohibit the use of tailers, gaffs,
pike gags and landing nets with knotted mesh?
Yes. In addition, we propose that the sale, possession and use of monofilament
gill nets should be prohibited (with the exception of tightly regulated use of
properly designed multi-panel sampling nets by bona fide scientists in
appropriate circumstances - see Q48). These are the “weapon of choice” for
inappropriate culling and poaching alike. They have absolutely no legitimate use
in the freshwater environment.
Q46: Do you agree that foul-hooking should be clearly prohibited in law?
Yes, and we are content with the definition proposed in para 96.
Q47: Do you agree with the proposals to make provision empowering the
Scottish Ministers to make orders specifying annual or weekly close times for
freshwater fish?
We make no comment on whether this proposal ought to be implemented in respect
of any salmonids for which such a power does not presently exist. With respect
to coarse fish species, however, we consider these powers to be unnecessary and
do not support the proposal.
There is no benefit to be gained by having any general, regional, or
species-specific close season for coarse fish in Scotland, and no evidence of
any need for such a measure. Stocks of wild coarse species are sustainable in
that face of any foreseeable level of angling pressure, and populations of
species like carp that do not reproduce well in Scotland need to be maintained
by periodic restocking regardless of whether a closed season is in force. In any
event, these species spawn at widely varying times of year, often in areas
inaccessible to anglers.
With the advantage of proper scientific data collection we may find that there
are grounds for localised restrictions – based on sound scientific advice - to
protect sensitive spawning sites on some waters. However, this matter should and
indeed can only be addressed at the level of the individual fishery. National
legislation is far too blunt an instrument for that purpose.
Q48: Do you agree with this approach? [Q48 concerns the proposal in para 99
to prohibit the eradication of fish or adversely affecting their environment.]
Yes. We agree wholeheartedly with this proposal. It is essential that there
should be strict regulations governing measures intended to reduce populations
of particular species, or any other activity that might reasonably be expected
to have that effect.
At present the law exercises little control over the removal of freshwater fish by means other than rod and line. The use of electrofishing or poisons is regulated, but under section 2 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act a proprietor or occupier having a right of freshwater fishing may take any freshwater fish other than trout by means of a net or trap.
Indiscriminate culling of coarse fish, especially pike, takes place on many waters in Scotland. This has no place in sound fishery management and must be stopped. Section 2 should be repealed and replaced by appropriate regulations controlling all removals other than by rod and line. The regulations should only allow such removals in two specific sets of circumstances:
- Highly selective eradication to eliminate a parasitic infection such as GS, an outbreak of infectious disease, or the spread of newly introduced invasive species such as signal crayfish.
- Moderate and justifiable use of lethal methods of capture, or the killing of sample fish for dissection, in the course of bona fide scientific study.
The system of regulation must not simply provide blanket exemption for any activity that purports to be conducted under either of these headings. To do so would allow the controls to be subverted by, for instance, making excessive use of gill nets on the pretext of gathering population data but with the covert aim of reducing stocks. Sampling protocols must be subject to independent scrutiny to ensure that any use of lethal methods is justified, and that mortalities are kept to a minimum.
The penalties for breach of this provision must be substantial enough to encourage compliance, and should include provision to order anyone convicted of such actions to meet in full the costs of replenishing stocks of all species to their pre-existing levels.
There is also evidence that some proprietors have taken actions to impede the
spawning of coarse fish or the hatching and growth of recently-born juveniles.
These include deliberately lowering water levels at certain times, or installing
gabions that obstruct weedbeds or shallow inlets where spawning takes place.
Measures of this kind must also be prevented by law, perhaps in the context of
the proposals discussed in Q50 below.
Q49: Do you agree that the current law prohibiting the obstruction of salmon
during their spawning runs should be extended as described?
This is not a matter of direct interest to coarse anglers. In principle we have
no objection (but see second paragraph of our comments on Q 50 below) and we
would be happy to go along with the views of the bodies representing game
anglers, assuming they have a common line on this matter.
Q50: Should the Executive widen the existing passage of salmon rules to cover
all freshwater fish and all times of year?
We support this proposal in principle. We suggest the regulations will need to
be framed more widely than described in the paper if they are to afford
protection for coarse fish. Some coarse species migrate within rivers to spawn,
whereas others tend to migrate within stillwaters to areas suitable for that
purpose. It is therefore important that the rules should be drafted so as to
encompass any activity that impedes spawning or denies access to spawning
habitat. This reflects the point we make in the final paragraph of our reply to
Q48.
We have one reservation, however. There are circumstances where for various
reasons it may be desirable to prevent the egress of stocked fish from a
particular water. It seems possible that the provisions of this proposal could
conflict with the ability of fishery proprietors to achieve that. The Executive
may wish to consider how the regulations could be framed so as not to prevent
such measures being taken where necessary.
Q51: Do you agree with the extension of the definition of fish?
Yes.
END