1. This paper sets out the response of the Scottish Federation for Coarse Angling (SFCA) to Diane McLafferty’s letter of 5 June 2000 concerning proposals for certain legislation which would invest additional powers in District Salmon Fishery Boards.

2. The Scottish Federation for Coarse Angling is the recognised governing body for the sport of coarse angling in Scotland and comprises clubs and individuals involved in all aspects of that sport. We sit alongside anglers’ organisations such as SANA in the First Minister’s Consultative Committee on Protection Orders and the Access Forum for Inland Waterways, and have been active participants with a much wider group of interested bodies in the Angling for Change (AfC) initiative since its inception. We welcome the opportunity to comment on this proposal.

Comments on Main Issues

3. It is widely acknowledged that salmon and sea trout catches are falling and stocks are in long term decline, drastically so in some areas of the west of Scotland. Although SFCA does not directly represent anglers who use migratory fisheries, many individual coarse anglers also pursue game fish and are deeply concerned about this matter. More important, coarse anglers share a common interest in the wider health and diversity of Scotland’s fisheries and fish populations and as such we recognise the crucial importance of these issues. We have considerable sympathy for the plight of the anglers and proprietors of migratory fisheries and would seek to lend support to appropriate measures which might significantly contribute to remedying that decline.

4. We are aware that much good work has been done by District Salmon Fisheries Boards and Fisheries Trusts, among others, to identify the causes of the decline and take the limited action available in freshwater to help counteract it. In many waters, coarse anglers have been able to contribute to this by helping gather information on fish populations or entering into productive dialogue on, for example, measures to avoid disturbance in spawning areas. We would be glad to encourage the widest possible involvement by individual coarse anglers and member clubs.

5. We understand that the mass of evidence points to factors in the marine stage of migratory species’ life cycle as the prime causes of this decline. As such, it is important to stress that measures to conserve salmon and sea trout in fresh water are only a small part of the overall effort needed to combat this parlous situation. We recognise that some of the "marine" issues may require uncomfortable choices to be taken between commercial and conservation priorities, but we would nevertheless urge Government to address these as a matter of urgency.

6. SFCA does not profess the appropriate scientific knowledge to judge the potential impact of controls over baits, lures or seasons, or of other measures such as catch-and-release policies, on the conservation of salmon and sea trout stocks in any particular water. It is proper that those who possess the necessary knowledge and have a stake in the outcome should come together to make such decisions. Salmon and sea trout anglers and proprietors should in general be free to agree, on the basis of proper information, what is best for migratory fisheries.

Detailed Response

7. The Association of Salmon Fishery Boards have been kind enough to pass to SFCA, in common with other participant organisations in the AfC partnership, a copy of their response to these proposals. In general - subject to the provisos set out in paras set out in paras 8 - 11 below - we concur with ASFB’s comments and support their submission.

8. We agree in principle that legislation should be introduced to help District Salmon Fishery Boards to co-ordinate the activities of proprietors and anglers in their areas and implement appropriate conservation measures more consistently. We stress, however, that our support extends only to measures which create no detriment to the interests of freshwater species or those who pursue them.

9. As we note in para 5 above, most of the factors which contribute to the present decline in migratory salmonids lie in the marine phase of their life and are largely beyond the scope of proprietors or anglers to influence. In freshwater, one issue which proprietors often seek to control is the incidence of predation on young fish, particularly smolts. In this they are often frustrated by the protected status of many avian and mammalian predators. Unfortunately, coarse fish - especially pike - enjoy no such protection. Proprietors in some locations have at times resorted to various ill-advised and largely ineffective measures to cull or eliminate coarse fish populations without scientific justification, under the guise of "conservation".

10. Some other migratory fisheries do not limit the restrictions they place on access, seasons, baits or methods to anglers fishing for salmon and sea trout, but impose the same constraints unnecessarily for all species. This creates a major loss of opportunities to pursue coarse angling - and indeed trout and grayling fishing - in those waters.

11. Regrettably, current fisheries legislation provides little or no safeguard against pseudo-conservation measures of the kind described in paras 9 and 10 above. We hope that will be remedied by what emerges from the consultation over the Protecting and Promoting Scotland’s Freshwater Fish and Fisheries review paper, to which SFCA will be contributing separately. In the meantime, however, it would be unacceptable if this well-intentioned proposal for new legislation to promote bona fide conservation measures had the effect of undermining the already-flimsy protection and limited access on which coarse fish and coarse anglers presently rely. It would be preferable, if the new powers are not to be open to abuse, for the "measures" they encompass to be listed clearly in legislation and for some statement to be incorporated in statute indicating that they should not be implemented in a way which is detrimental to the interests of freshwater species or those who pursue them.

 

12. We have some concerns on two other matters of detail in the proposals:-

1. It is proposed (para 10.1 of the letter) that where no DSFB exists these powers may be vested in "proprietors, acting collectively". This is in our view not acceptable. At worst it may actually encourage abuse.

DSFBs are statutory bodies with a well-developed co-ordination mechanism in the form of ASFB. It is reasonable to expect them to exercise such powers responsibly and some constitutional checks and balances exist which should help ensure they do so. To place these powers in the hands of loosely-assembled groups of self-interested and entirely unaccountable proprietors would frankly be irresponsible.

That said, we recognise that in some areas, most importantly the Clyde and Loch Lomond, migratory fisheries are managed by well-established bodies without the formation of a DSFB. We suggest that the answer lies in normally vesting these powers only in DSFBs, but to have a provision to allow the First Minister to deem an established and appropriately constituted management body (for example the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association) as equivalent to a DSFB for this purpose.

2. It is envisaged (para 10.4 of the letter) that a District Salmon Fishery Board should publicise "in the local press" its intention to seek powers to implement a measure under this legislation. We agree fully with the concept of prior statutory consultation in these circumstances. We believe, however, that it is essential for this to be a meaningful and inclusive process.

To achieve this, there must be an obligation for national organisations which represent anglers’ interests, including SFCA, to be notified of such proposals when they are put forward, and to have the right to submit comments to the Executive. As noted in para 6 above, it is not our intention to interfere with the right of migratory proprietors to manage their fisheries or to influence their judgement on how best to do so - providing this does not prejudice our own position. A statutory right of notification would offer a reasonable safeguard against abuse and, perhaps just as important, reassurance for coarse anglers that their interests were not being circumvented.

Summary

13. We support the proposal for new legislation providing it is framed in such a manner as to ensure that the powers in question do not have the effect of:-

1. reducing the current restrictions on culling or eradication of populations of other species in waters containing migratory salmonids; or

2. reducing the range of legitimate baits and methods which may be used by anglers pursuing other species in waters containing migratory salmonids; or

3. reducing the extent of legitimate and responsible access to fishing for other species in waters containing migratory salmonids.

Scottish Federation for Coarse Angling

July 2000