SFCA Response to Scottish Executive Green Paper

1. We are extremely disappointed to note that the Paper is devoid of any proposals in to afford conservation protection to existing populations of coarse fish species. The current legislation offers no effective protection to coarse fish. For instance:-

1. it is an explicit condition of permission to fish in many Scottish lochs and rivers that all coarse fish captured must be killed. This applies even in waters such as the Tay, where the so-called Protection Order palpably fails to protect coarse fish or promote access to pursue them;

2. under section 2(2) of the 1951 Act, any proprietor or occupier who has a right of freshwater fishing continues to be permitted to take freshwater fish other than trout (our italics) by means of nets or traps;

3. coarse fish - primarily but not exclusively pike - continue to be killed in substantial numbers in some waters. In some cases this is openly carried out to eliminate perceived predators or competitors, whilst in others it is conducted on the pretext of scientific study. Many proprietors use gill nets for this, yet these kill all species indiscriminately and may harm the fishery by removing the larger predators and allow their juvenile brethren to proliferate. More effective and appropriate tools are available for the purpose of scientific examination of dietary habits and growth patterns, where that is the genuine intention.

2. We believe that legislation must be introduced as a matter of urgency to prevent the culling or eradication of any established species other than on sound scientific grounds. There is no reason why the law should differentiate between trout, salmon or coarse fish in this respect.

3. Where fish have to be captured for research purposes, the law should restrict the methods used to techniques which will minimise fatalities and maximise the validity of the information collected. For example, any evaluation of dietary patterns of pike should be conducted with the use of proper multi-panel sampling nets or non-lethal trapping so that it gathers essential data on the availability of prey species and the comparative impact of other predators.

1. Despite frequent references to "indigenous", "native", "alien", "introduced" and "exotic" species, at no point does the Paper define to which species each of these terms refers. This makes it virtually impossible to comment meaningfully on proposals such as those in paras 19 -21. If, for example, the term "exotic, non-indigenous species" in para 19 refers purely to fish of non-UK origin that are not already established in Scotland, we might be able to give the proposal our qualified support, subject to the law "regulating" rather than "banning" introductions. On the other hand, we would implacably oppose the proposal if it sought to prevent all further stocking of species such as carp which are of (distantly) non-UK origin, but already well established in Scotland.

2. Enquiries on this point to SEERAD shortly after the publication of the Paper met with a very prompt and polite - but unfortunately not entirely conclusive - response. We were referred back to the list which appears in Protecting and promoting Scotland’s freshwater fish and fisheries. This divides fish into "original colonisers" and "introductions", and subdivides the "introductions" further into "long-established species", "locally non-native (native elsewhere in Britain)" and "non-native species (not native to Britain)". In passing we note it is deficient in that it fails to mention barbel, which have been present in the Clyde since the mid-sixties.

3. There is a respected body of scientific opinion which holds that several of the species on the "long established" list should in fact be regarded as "native". This was most recently voiced by Dr Peter Maitland and Dr Colin Adams in a symposium on alien species at Glasgow University. They put forward the contention that pike, perch, roach, minnows and stone loach may be present "naturally" in Scotland, having reached here not by marine migration but though routes such as traversing watersheds during floods and transfer by eggs adhering to birds legs. Of course their present distribution - as with many of the "original colonisers" - is no doubt much influenced by stocking by humans; but that is a separate issue.

4. The Protecting & Promoting list is itself inconsistent. The allocation of some species to the "locally non-native" and "not native to Britain" groups is not readily explainable. For instance, these sections of the list include species such as grayling and common carp which have been present in numerous locations in Scotland for well over a century - perhaps a great deal longer in the case of carp. The same is true on a more localised basis of species such as dace, chub and gudgeon, which have also been found for more than a century in several of the Solway rivers and (with the apparent exception of chub) in the Tweed. It is impossible to deny that all these species are as well-established in Scotland as rainbow trout, which were quite sensibly defined as a "long-established species" in Protecting & Promoting.

5. In replying to our recent correspondence SEERAD suggested they accept that all of the fish referred to in the Protecting & Promoting list are now "established in Scotland", and that anything not included in that list would be regarded as "alien" or "exotic". By implication, we take it that all the species which appear in any section of the Protecting & Promoting list can be regarded as "naturalised" or "established" and, among other things, would not be subject to the ban proposed in para 19 of the Paper. We wholeheartedly support that approach, and would welcome official confirmation that this is what SEERAD intend.

6. On a broader basis, for the avoidance of doubt in the future, we would urge the Executive to publish comprehensive and unequivocal definitions of the terms (such as "indigenous", alien, exotic" etc) used in the Green Paper and elsewhere to categorise fish species, and to consult with the scientific community and other interested parties to establish a definitive list of the fish species in Scotland under each category.

NEXT SECTION - APPENDIX 2 - SFCA RESPONSE TO GREEN PAPER PROPOSALS

BACK TO FIRST SECTION 

BACK TO TOP