SFCA Response to Scottish Executive Green Paper

[For clarity, we have reproduced, in bold, the text of the proposals as they appear in the Summary on Pages 16 to 18 of the Paper. Our comments are in plain text, except as required for emphasis.]

Economics

• We view this as a positive move, and would be glad to take up any opportunity which may present itself to contribute to the process. We would suggest that two particular considerations should be bourne in mind when the analysis is designed:-

• With regard to the current financial dynamics of the sector, it will be vital to take full account of the enormous voluntary investment of time and labour by individuals and angling clubs in fishery management activities. In many cases this invisible "expenditure" sustains fisheries which form valuable recreational assets for residents of the areas concerned, and contribute significantly to the local economies by attracting visitors.

• Looking to the future, it will be important to recognise that coarse fishing is grossly under-exploited in many areas. Although it may contribute only modestly at present, the potential, in terms of direct permit revenue and indirect visitor spending, is much more substantial. The analysis should seek to identify areas where that potential can be tapped, and barriers to this being achieved.

• This is a sensible and unobjectionable proposal, which appears to reflect a process which is in any event already more or less complete. Our only observation is that in a Paper which attributes the need for delay in implementing certain important proposals to a lack of Parliamentary time, it appears odd that this "legislative housekeeping" exercise warrants immediate priority.

• Until we have definite confirmation of what species are categorised as "exotic" in this context, it is impossible to comment in full. We would also ask whether, in parallel to the existing provisions of the 1978 Act, the term used here should be "regulating" rather than "banning". In the light of these uncertainties, SFCA would oppose this proposal as it stands. However, we acknowledge and support what we believe to be the underlying principle. We accept, for example, that some species such as zander could be both prolific and destructive, and therefore that allowing their introduction may create an unacceptable risk of detriment to established species. However, as it is presently phrased the proposal can be read to imply that other species such as common carp might be in danger of being declared pisces non grata. We would wholeheartedly oppose any move which prevented the continuation of responsible introductions of benign species such as carp, which at appropriate stocking densities pose no risk of harm to other inhabitants.

Whilst retaining the option to oppose specific proposals to restrict the introduction of particular species of coarse fish, we therefore support in principle the creation of a very small, scientifically justified, set of proscribed introductions, coupled with legislation providing for risk-assessment-based regulation of all movements and introductions of whatever species.

• As there is no coarse fishing in the Western Isles, this proposal does not directly concern us. We would observe, however, that the very substantial expenditure which is likely to be required for SNH to deliver this objective may in fact be put to better use in other projects to support fisheries or to enhance aquatic environments. If, for example, the Executive sees it as a priority to provide funding to combat the spread of introduced species, we would suggest that money might be better spent in supporting the present, entirely voluntarily-funded, efforts being undertaken to control American signal crayfish in the Clyde.

• Whilst SFCA does not subscribe to the view that all introductions are "unwanted", or have "serious consequences", we strongly support the concept of the regulation of introductions, based on scientifically informed risk assessment. We also acknowledge that coarse anglers have behaved no better - or worse - than others in the past with regard to stocking and other fishery management practices. SFCA and member clubs have a crucial role in promoting and - to the extent that voluntary membership organisations can be empowered to do so - enforcing responsible behaviour among coarse anglers on this issue to help reduce the likelihood of inappropriate introductions in future. We would welcome the opportunity to contribute to both the development and delivery of relevant material.

• We reject the premise on which this proposal is based. Released or escaped livebaits may have contributed to the spread of a few species in a small number of waters, but at most this is a minor source among the many ways in which locally non-native species and genetically different stocks have spread around Scotland. To single out livebaiting as the cause of more than a tiny proportion of such introductions is discriminatory and inaccurate. Most disturbing from a conservation perspective, it leaves the main culprits untouched. For instance, the Awe Fisheries Trust estimates that 6% of the fish population in Loch Awe comprises rainbow trout. All of them are refugees from fish farms. Other waters, such as Loch Lochy, have seen high levels of "stocking" through fish farm escapes. The damaging introduction of signal crayfish to the Clyde came also from aquaculture sources. Yet the Paper contains nothing to tighten controls on commercial fish-rearing operations.

Even if some species have been introduced to particular waters via discarded livebaits over the last thirty or forty years; there is no unequivocal evidence that any of those introduced fish species have actually caused harm. In any event, it is 30 years too late to stop them. They are where they are, and the task is now to prevent further movement of any species other than within a framework of scientifically informed fishery management. We share the Executive’s desire to accomplish that, but cannot under any circumstances accept that a total ban on the use of live fish as bait is either a reasonable restriction to place on anglers or an effective means to achieve this objective.

Livebaiting is universally recognised by coarse anglers as a legitimate practice for the pursuit of predatory fish, mainly pike. In many circumstances it is almost the only effective way to catch these species. It is permissible not only in England and Wales but virtually everywhere else in 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 undoubtedly Scotland’s greatest attraction.

To criminalise this method would also be profoundly unfair. The enormous majority of pike anglers are entirely innocent of introducing non-native species. A ban would punish them for the behaviour of a handful of their fathers’ generation. This would understandably create profound resentment among pike fishers and indeed coarse anglers generally. It is universally true that any legislation which is widely perceived as unfair and unreasonable tends to attract low levels of compliance. SFCA and member clubs would not encourage anglers to disregard the law; but some individuals will inevitably be tempted. And many otherwise responsible anglers who have a conscience about breaking the law themselves might still be inclined to sit back and watch others doing so. Most important, that sense of resentment could spill over into more general resistance to the positive measures which can emerge from the Green Paper. This would make it all the more difficult for SFCA and member clubs to promote responsible behaviour on other issues.

It would plainly be far better to find a way of achieving what the paper sets out to attain in terms of stopping the uncontrolled spread of locally non-native species; but without alienating the entire community it seeks to regulate. We believe that this can be done.

Our starting point is to emphasise that livebaiting and translocations are two entirely separate issues. The most appropriate and effective way to prevent further unauthorised introductions is by legislation directly regulating fish movements. SFCA supports the introduction of such legislation, and would see it as perfectly reasonable for anglers who infringe that - whether by translocating livebaits or in any other circumstances - to be liable to criminal prosecution.

SFCA has for some time encouraged coarse anglers fishing in Scotland only to use livebaits taken from the water being fished, as have the specialist pike angling clubs here. We are now developing a Code of Conduct which will require the use of livebaits in Scotland to be restricted exclusively to fish taken from the water being fished, and will expect all coarse angling clubs in Scotland to enforce this rigorously in respect of their members. We believe this will be very much more effective than a statutory ban on livebaiting in ensuring that unauthorised translocations do not take place in future - not least because the enforcement of it will have the active support and co-operation of the anglers to whom it applies. It can also come into force immediately, rather than waiting until a legislative opportunity arises.

We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter in detail with the Executive in order to ensure that our Code of Practice, and the implementation of it, addresses any and all concerns which may exist over the issue, and has the maximum impact when it comes into force.

We submit that the approach described above provides an acceptable, workable, and above all more effective alternative to this unwelcome and unnecessary proposal.

• We believe that controls, and effective monitoring and enforcement machinery to ensure compliance, should exist on introductions and movements of all species. Decisions to permit introductions and movements should be based on scientifically-informed risk assessment of the potential impact on the other occupants, if any, of that environment. Any controls must not however prevent responsible stocking and introductions of coarse fish in waters where they are the only species present, or can reasonably be expected to co-exist with other inhabitants. The presence of coarse fish is not intrinsically more or less desirable than any other species. Properly managed stocking of coarse fish can enhance the range of sporting opportunities in appropriate waters. There must be scope to progress from the status quo.

Care would plainly be required before introducing any species which could be expected to spread and multiply, but it is important to stress that this does not apply to all coarse fish. Species such as barbel, carp, chub, and perhaps also bream do not generally reproduce well in Scotland. Whilst there are some exceptions, most current populations of these are at best self-sustaining, and certainly show no signs of proliferation. For practical purposes these species can be viewed as the equivalent of the "sterile" rainbow trout which are stocked in commercial trout fisheries. In passing it should be noted that sterile stock fish of coarse species are not available, and that there are no commercial fish farms supplying coarse species in Scotland. The legislation must therefore permit the acquisition of stock fish from appropriate sources in England & Wales, underpinned of course by adequate provisions for assuring the health status of the fish concerned.

• This is not a matter on which SFCA wishes to comment directly. We will contribute to the consensus view of the Angling for Change Group on this proposal.

• This is not a matter on which SFCA wishes to comment directly. We will contribute to the consensus view of the Angling for Change Group on this proposal.

• Populations of some coarse species, especially carp, are fragile in Scotland. They are extremely vulnerable to disease and parasites carried by poor quality stock fish. We therefore support the introduction of statutory measures which would require health certification of fish farms and hatcheries and permit stocking only from demonstrably safe sources.

Fish stocks can often be threatened by, for example, proposals to drain lochs and reservoirs. In the case of coarse fish it is also regrettably true that populations can be displaced by proprietors’ desire to make way for other species. If fish in these circumstances cannot be removed to another suitable location, they would have to be killed. This is both cruel, and an unnecessary waste of a potential sporting asset. The law should not prevent fish being moved from sources other than hatcheries or fish farms, providing appropriate authority is obtained to stock them in the water to which they are relocated, and relevant health checks are undertaken.

• This is not a matter on which SFCA wishes to comment directly. We will contribute to the consensus view of the Angling for Change Group on this proposal.

• This is not a matter on which SFCA wishes to comment directly. We will contribute to the consensus view of the Angling for Change Group on this proposal.

• This is not a matter on which SFCA wishes to comment directly. We will contribute to the consensus view of the Angling for Change Group on this proposal.

• We wholeheartedly support the proposal in the first bullet point of Para 33, and would welcome the opportunity to contribute to the fullest possible degree to the FRS activities to which it refers.

Some coarse fisheries in Scotland, especially the pike fisheries in waters such as Loch Lomond and Loch Awe, are already recognised as unique and internationally important sporting assets. Other waters contain pike, roach or grayling in prolific numbers and / or specimen proportions. These could perhaps become equally valuable and popular, but they are unexploited and indeed in many cases unknown beyond very limited circles. The number and quality of fisheries for some other species, such as carp, is constrained by the capacity of clubs and others involved in the sport to fund stocking, but these too are growing - albeit slowly.

• This is not a matter on which SFCA wishes to comment directly. We will contribute to the consensus view of the Angling for Change Group on this proposal.

• We have been closely involved in the development of the Angling for Change model to which this proposal refers, and fully support that. We do not propose to comment in detail on this aspect of the Paper, but will be contributing to a comprehensive submission from the Angling for Change Group on the subject.

We would add only our particular emphasis that it will be vitally important to ensure that fishery management plans are obliged to take the fullest account of the needs of all fish species and the interests of all anglers.

• We have been closely involved in the development of the Angling for Change model to which this proposal refers, and fully support that. We do not propose to comment in detail on this aspect of the Paper, but will be contributing to a comprehensive submission from the Angling for Change Group on the subject.

We would add only our particular emphasis that it will be essential to ensure that the interests of coarse anglers are properly represented on Area Fisheries Management Committees (or whatever local management bodies result from this proposal) in all areas of Scotland where any populations of coarse fish are to be found. In practice this would encompass the whole country with the exception of the Hebrides, the Northern Isles, Caithness and much of Sutherland.

• We have been closely involved in the development of the Angling for Change model to which this proposal refers, and fully support that. We do not propose to comment in detail on this aspect of the Paper, but will be contributing to a comprehensive submission from the Angling for Change Group on the subject.

We would add only our particular emphasis that it will be essential to ensure that the interests of coarse anglers are properly represented on the National Fisheries Management Consultative Committee, or whatever analogous body might result from this proposal. At present, SFCA sits on the nearest equivalent body (the Consultative Committee on Protection Orders) by invitation of SANA, the governing body for game angling. We are grateful for SANA’s support in that, but we believe that it is important that SFCA should have a seat at such tables in its own right rather than as a guest of another parallel - if admittedly rather larger and longer established - organisation.

• This is not a matter on which SFCA wishes to comment directly. We will contribute to the consensus view of the Angling for Change Group on this proposal.

• This is not a matter on which SFCA wishes to comment directly. We will contribute to the consensus view of the Angling for Change Group on this proposal.

• Access to angling opportunities, or rather the lack of it, is undoubtedly one of the most important issues to be addressed in Scottish fisheries legislation. It is disappointing to see that the Paper does not accord it more immediate priority. Current Protection Orders manifestly fail to meet the needs of coarse anglers or coarse species. A much stronger mechanism is needed. The Angling for Change submission to Protecting and Promoting examined the weaknesses and limitations of the PO system in detail, and proposed structures which we believe would meet the needs we describe above. We wholeheartedly support that analysis and commend the AfC proposals.

Among the more glaring flaws of the current system are that:-

• There is no mandatory provision for establishing a Liaison Committee;

• The remit of Liaison Committees does not extend to the power to require comprehensive monitoring or the systematic gathering of data on the operation of the PO

• There is no adequate mechanism for funding the activities of Liaison Committees;

• The system makes no link between the granting of an Order and the effective management of the fishery:

• levels of access granted are not linked to any steps to ascertain the capacity of fish populations to sustain exploitation;

• The system still contains little or no power of sanction to induce reluctant proprietors to comply with the letter - never mind the spirit - of the legislation. In many cases POs are quite clearly being used to reduce access to fishing.

• With the honourable exception of the Loch Awe and Associated Waters Protection Order, no current PO constructively promotes the full range of coarse fishing available in the fishery concerned. Several leave coarse anglers with almost insuperable restrictions on methods, seasons, permit availability, and the focus on locals rather than visiting anglers.

The new law must provide that wherever possible responsible access should be granted at reasonable cost to fish for all freshwater species present. As well as giving physical access to waters, the owners or operators of fisheries should be obliged to:-

• make permits available on the bankside or from convenient outlets in the locality throughout the longest possible period of each day and week;

• allow fishing for freshwater species on every day of the week, whether or not migratory species are present in the water; and permit coarse angling throughout the year, regardless of the close seasons for salmonids;

• allow the legitimate use of baits, tackle and angling methods appropriate to the species being pursued.

• The paragraph heading is perhaps misleading. This proposal would actually do nothing to promote greater access to angling, but would publicise it more widely. That is certainly an matter of some importance, but it is far from being the key to developing coarse angling in Scotland.

Nevertheless, we are pleased to see this proposal and would be delighted to become involved. We believe there is a great untapped potential for coarse angling in Scotland, and significant scope to promote it in the true sense of the term. The development of new specialised coarse fisheries is one part of that long-term expansion, and that depends on permitting stocking to continue on a properly regulated basis. But wider opportunities exist for high quality mixed fisheries to be maintained, established or opened up in many Scottish waters. Better information-gathering and publicity would facilitated that, but the most important steps which must be taken to promote coarse angling in Scotland are to persuade proprietors to provide wider access for coarse fishing, and to allow coarse anglers to use appropriate tackle and methods.

• Whilst not an issue in which we have a direct interest, it seems rather odd that the Paper is promoting greater exploitation of salmon stocks at a time when anglers, proprietors and conservation groups are united in the perception that populations - certainly in large areas of the country - are under severe pressure.

We would suggest that instead of intensifying the focus on the already heavily exploited and possibly dwindling salmon resource, this is an opportune time to put the emphasis on diversifying the tourist angling base by looking to other species - trout, char and coarse fish - to provide wider opportunities and, in the case of coarse species, a longer potential season.

There is very substantial coarse angling tourism potential in Scotland. This can be divided into three broad categories:-

• some scope exists for short (largely one-day, occasionally weekend) trips by Northern English club anglers to fish competitions. In the sixties & seventies, this was a very healthy aspect of the sport. It encompassed a number of waters as far north as the Forth & Clyde canal and even on some occasions the tidal reaches of the Tay. Today, the fishing in most of these waters has declined badly, in some cases through the removal of coarse fish by proprietors, but some waters such as Loch Ken still attract this type of visiting angler;

• there is already some exploitation of coarse fisheries linked to and managed by hotels or guest houses, especially in Dumfries and Galloway. That area also benefits from a number of day ticket coarse waters within reasonable travelling distance, making it an attractive base for a longer stay. Better access provisions and more transparent permitting arrangements would be an aid to developing this type of tourist coarse angling. Some waters in this area, such as Castle Loch at Lochmaben, are probably already exploited to the full. However, others such as the River Dee, the Annan, and its tributaries have considerable coarse fishing potential, but give little or no access (and fail to publicise what access is available) to coarse anglers or impose bait and tackle restrictions which hamper appropriate techniques. The tourism industry in Dumfries and Galloway suffered particularly badly as a result of in the recent Foot & Mouth epidemic. Vigorous promotion of coarse angling tourism in this part of the country could be an important step in assisting the regeneration of that aspect of the local economy.

• the greatest potential for the development of tourist coarse angling is in the unique and very substantial attraction of Scotland's wild pike fisheries. Much of this lies north of the Forth / Clyde line. Venues such as Loch Lomond and Loch Awe are internationally renowned and the popular areas of both these waters are already heavily fished and probably would not bear a lot more exploitation. However there are other productive areas, particularly on Loch Awe, which get little attention, and there is an enormous amount of largely untapped potential in other waters both further north and in the Trossachs. These fisheries could be marketed not only in the UK but in Europe and the USA, and we have every confidence that the opportunity to catch hard-fighting wild pike in spectacularly attractive surroundings would be a potent attraction. Once more, the development of them as a tourism resource demands a combination of better access, better publicity and permit information, and the removal of restrictions on methods, seasons etc which inadvertently disadvantage coarse anglers. In addition, of course, it would be essential to encourage proprietors to cease the all-too-widespread practices of netting the pike out, and to discourage trout anglers from killing all the pike they catch by rod and line.

There is also some scope to cater for more specialised interests, albeit on a smaller scale. Scotland has superb grayling waters in, for example, the Nith, the Tweed and the Tay systems. There are also very good potential roach and perch fisheries in some salmon and trout waters. As with so many aspects of the development of coarse angling, more could be made of these assets if we were able to open up better access to the fisheries and publicise them more effectively. In the long term, as the number of true commercial coarse fisheries in Scotland grows, this sector too may offer scope for tourism development.

• We can confirm the problems caused to our sport as a result of coarse angling methods being outlawed by Scottish fishing legislation, and welcome the Paper’s recognition that requirement to use "single rod, held in the hand" is an anomaly which must be reconsidered. It is no more rational to classify coarse fishers’ use of rod rests or multiple rod set-ups as equivalent to "set lines" than it would be to equate a trout angler’s three-fly cast to the dreaded "otter". We would also draw attention to the fact that many disabled anglers have physical difficulty maintaining constant hold of rods, and therefore are denied legal pursuit of their sport by this provision. Scotland is the only country in Europe - and indeed as far as we can ascertain the only place in the world - where such discriminatory and unnecessary restrictions exist.

We unreservedly support the removal of these restrictions as an essential step in establishing a level playing field for coarse anglers in Scotland. To pursue our sport we need to be able to employ techniques which 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 proper control is exercised.

Para 53 outlines what it describes as "conservation and welfare arguments for such a prohibition". However, the observations made under that heading do not take account of the reality of coarse angling practice. Coarse anglers do not leave tackle unattended. They use sensitive visual and/or electronic indicators which show up the least movement of the bait. The main reason the rod is placed in rests is to tension the whole rig up to ensure bites are detected swiftly. This is extremely effective and militates against gut-hooking. Coarse anglers universally practice catch and return, and fish welfare is a matter of primary concern to them.

Carp fishing in particular is almost always conducted with multiple rod set-ups placed in rests, and it is unheard of for carp to be deep-hooked as a result. Some stocked carp fisheries in England contain individual fish whose replacement value runs into four and even five figures. If using rods in rests posed the slightest risk to the welfare of those fish, the owners of these waters would ban it in an instant. But that is unnecessary, and simply does not happen.

We appreciate that there are a few delinquents who would call themselves anglers, and who think it is acceptable to leave groups of baited lines unattended for long periods while they concentrate on drink or whatever else attracts them to their particular travesty of the sport. It must be said that the current legal provision signally fails to prevent this. We fully support measures to catch, ban and fine them. But that does not necessitate criminalising thousands of legitimate coarse anglers for using the tools that are appropriate to pursue their sport. The law should allow the use of rods set on suitably constructed rod rests, and permit the use of more than one rod simultaneously providing that the tackle is properly attended so that control is maintained at all times. The use of multiple rods should be subject to an overriding limit - we suggest no more than four, which accords with the provisions in England and Wales. With that exception, any restrictions on tackle and tactics should be a matter for the proprietor of the fishery in question.

It is understandable that fishery operators may be concerned to protect their stocks of trout from accidental catches, or from deliberate abuse under the false pretext of pursuing coarse species.

• with regard to the former, we accept that there may be reasonable grounds to make more restrictive conditions in some individual fisheries where the risk of damage is high;

• on the latter, we understand that some bailiffs and wardens may find it difficult to recognise the difference between a person who is genuinely fishing for coarse species and one who is masquerading as a coarse angler to abuse coarse angling methods, although the distinctions are fairly easily spotted by an informed eye.

We would seek to promote positive co-existence wherever possible, and will be pleased to work together with national bodies, individual clubs and fishery proprietors to develop codes of practice for mutually acceptable restrictions on methods, and publish information to assist fisheries to identify the difference between bona fide coarse anglers and their imitators.

• This is an eminently sensible proposal to which we are happy to lend our support. However, it should not divert attention from the possibility that a net increase may nevertheless be required in the public funding available for fish conservation and fisheries in Scotland.

• We would extend a cautious welcome to this proposal. In principle we have no objection, and indeed we see benefits in having stronger sanctions against certain mischiefs. However, it would be wrong to commit ourselves to a firm view without a clearer indication of the penalties envisaged for the crimes concerned.

BACK TO  APPENDIX 1  - OMMISSIONS

BACK TO FIRST SECTION 

BACK TO TOP