S.F.C.A. response to 'PROTECTING and PROMOTING Scotland’s Freshwater Fish and Fisheries' (SERAD consultation document)

1. The Scottish Federation for Coarse Angling (SFCA) is the recognised governing body for the sport of coarse angling in Scotland and comprises clubs and individuals involved in all aspects of the sport. SFCA member organisations include clubs whose activities encompass a range of general coarse angling pursuits, groups whose interests focus on particular species such as pike or carp, and others who specialise in competitive angling. Several SFCA clubs lease and manage their own fisheries or run them in partnership with, for example, local authorities.

2. SFCA promotes the coaching of young anglers, organises competitive coarse fishing in Scotland, manages the Scottish international match team, and represents coarse angling interests at national level. SFCA is regularly consulted via SportScotland on proposals for SSSIs and SACs, and we have been actively involved in the First Minister’s Consultative Committee on Protection Orders, the Secretary of State’s 1997/98 Review of Protection Orders, and the Access Forum for Inland Waterways.

3. Having been a party to the Angling for Change (AfC) initiative since its inception, SFCA has contributed substantially to the comprehensive submission which AfC has prepared in response to the Review. We wish to make clear our endorsement of that submission.

SFCA OBJECTIVES AND PRIORITIES

4. We welcome the Review and share the belief of other organisations in the field that effective policies must be developed for the conservation, sound management and sustainable exploitation of fish of all species in fresh water in Scotland. SFCA is willing to work with statutory bodies and other organisations in the field to develop, publicise and implement measures to achieve these goals.

5. We see substantial gaps in the structures and statutory controls which presently exist, and serious flaws in the way they operate either overall or in particular localities:-

1. It is abundantly clear that even after the changes arising from the 1997/98 Review, the system of Protection Orders under the 1976 Act is signally failing to deliver effective management and reasonable access for angling - especially coarse angling - even in those few areas where it has any effect at all.

2. Legitimate coarse fishing methods are effectively outlawed by Scottish angling legislation.

3. Coarse fish populations continue to be decimated in some waters through ill-informed, unscientific, and almost always ineffective "management" measures intended to enhance fisheries for other species.

4. Coarse fishing interests have little or no effective voice in most of the management structures which exist at present

6. These and other problems must be remedied. Current statutory protection and management structures have proved fundamentally incapable of tackling them. A new legislative and administrative framework for fish conservation and fisheries management, which covers the whole country and encompass all species, is required to achieve this.

7. Our prime objective for any such new framework in Scotland is simply to create a level playing field for coarse angling and coarse fish species in Scotland. In order to achieve this, the new framework must ensure that :-

1. Stocks of coarse species are protected, and may be enhanced to the maximum degree compatible with the interests of other water users and the ecology of each location;

2. Access to coarse fishing venues is preserved, and extended to the maximum degree compatible with the interests of other water users and the ecology of each location;

3. Restrictions on legitimate coarse fishing techniques are eliminated except insofar as they may be essential in the interests of other water users or the ecology of each location;

4. Coarse angling interests have the opportunity to participate fully in the management bodies of fisheries which contain coarse species.

8. Any new framework must provide for fisheries management decisions to be made on sound scientific grounds with an overriding obligation to maintain the well being of all species currently present in a particular water and balance the interests of the different groups of anglers who pursue each of those species. This should start from the following principles:-

1. established stocks of every species of fish in each water should be maintained and protected from elimination or reduction unless there is clear scientific evidence that their presence forms a significant detriment to other species in that water;

2. stocking, or reducing the stocks of, any species in any water should require authority from the fisheries management body responsible for that catchment area / locality;

3. adding more fish of a species already established in a water should normally be permissible unless there is clear scientific evidence that their presence already forms a significant detriment to other species inhabiting that water;

4. adding fish of a species not already present in the water should be permissible, provided there is clear scientific evidence that the water in question would provide a suitable habitat for the new species and that their introduction would not risk creating a significant detriment to those species already present.

9. Responsible access to fish for all freshwater species present must be made available at reasonable cost wherever possible. As well as granting physical access to waters, the owners or operators of fisheries should:-

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

2. allow fishing for freshwater species on every day of the week, whether or not Sunday fishing for migratory species remains forbidden, and throughout the year, regardless of close seasons for salmonid species;

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

10. Scottish angling legislation should allow the use of tackle and methods which are commonplace elsewhere and recognised as legitimate for the pursuit of coarse species. General prohibitions on certain practices must be removed from the legislation, including local bye-laws. This must leave coarse anglers free to use tactics involving:-

1. rods set on purpose-made rests or rod pods rather than held in the hand;

2. fishing with more than one rod simultaneously, providing appropriate control and observation by the angler can be assured;

3. loose-feeding (ie, introducing samples of hookbait to attract fish and provoke feeding) or groundbaiting (ie introducing other baits, such as breadcrumb, to attract fish to a preferred feeding area) in appropriate quantities;

4. retaining captured fish in a suitably sized, constructed, and situated keepnet, pike tunnel, or carp sack prior to returning them to the water.

COMMENTS ON THE REVIEW

11. The comments which follow reflect the views of SFCA on the issues in the Review which are of particular importance from a coarse angling perspective. Most of our observations are grouped on themes which are developed across more than one chapter, but we have referred to particular chapters, or in some cases individual paragraphs, where appropriate.

Freshwater fish species in Scotland

12. Coarse fish are a legitimate component of Scotland’s established wildlife and a valuable sporting resource. As well as providing welcome and valuable diversity in angling opportunities they enrich what the Review acknowledges is Scotland’s "relatively impoverished native freshwater fish fauna" by occupying ecological niches which are largely separate from those taken up by salmonids or other "native" species. We are pleased to see the very positive comments in Chapters 4 and 6 which endorse the position of coarse species and promote coarse angling. However, the Review does too little to dispel the perception of some game anglers and fishery proprietors - and perhaps even a few conservationists - that coarse species are second class citizens of the aquatic environment in Scotland. Even today, coarse fish are treated as vermin in some waters. The terminology, and certain aspects of the text itself, in Chapters 1, 2 and 3 does not help overcome that. The differing ways in which the Review considers "native" and "introduced" species, for instance, might be taken to imply that the authors regard species which were not among the "original colonisers" as less worthy of protection.

13. The Review appears to equate what is "natural" with the position immediately following the last ice age. This is a narrow snapshot view based an arbitrary selection of reference point. The diversity and distribution of Scotland’s fish populations is the result of a dynamic process which depends on many ever-changing factors and continues to this day. The post-glacial colonisation started with species such as bass and mullet which remain - certainly in the eyes of anglers - primarily saltwater fish. They were accompanied by anadromous species, some of which then developed landlocked variants. In some respects, therefore, no freshwater fish species are truly "native" to the parts of Scotland which were icebound in the last glaciation. All are incomers (as indeed are we) and what differs is the timing and manner in which stocks became established.

14. The early "natural", colonisation process undoubtedly left ecological niches - and some entire habitats - largely barren of fish because they were ill-suited to anadromous (or formerly anadromous) species or had been unconnected to the sea. Coarse fish subsequently became established in many of these environments, mostly through human intervention, as did other populations of the so-called "native" species. This does not mean that they have displaced "native" populations. Most coarse fish tend to prefer quite different conditions from the "original colonisers". They tolerate higher temperatures and nutrient loads and lower oxygen levels. In rivers, cyprinids thrive best in the slower siltier reaches immediately above the tidal zone which offer the least attractive habitat for salmonids. Even where they coexist closely, coarse species rarely compete directly with others, and those which pursue predatory feeding habits are responsible for only a small component of overall predation.

Conservation mechanisms

15. It is profoundly disturbing to see the lack of any reference in Chapter 2 to the need to protect coarse fish populations. Efforts are often unnecessarily made to cull or eradicate pike from fisheries on the ill-founded pretext that they predate extensively on the "native" species present in the water. Species such as grayling (because they are thought by some to eat salmon spawn) and perch (considered as potential competitors for trout or predators on juvenile salmonids) suffer similarly. Even roach and dace have also been killed (neither on any known rational basis) in large numbers in some waters. These abuses must be stopped.

16. The statutory provision referred to on Page 61 of the Review, which allows any proprietor or occupier who has a right of freshwater fishing to take freshwater fish other than trout by means of nets or traps, is prejudicial to coarse fish and must be removed. Legislation must be introduced to prevent the culling or eradication of any established species other than on sound scientific grounds, and the law should not differentiate between trout, salmon or coarse fish in this respect.

17. Where fish have to be captured for research purposes, the methods used must be tightly restricted to minimise fatalities and maximise the validity of the information collected. For example, if an evaluation of dietary patterns of pike is conducted without the use of proper multi-panel sampling nets or non-lethal trapping, it becomes nothing more than a de facto cull and fails to gather essential data on the comparative availability of prey species or the comparative impact on salmonid populations of other predators.

18. That said, in certain circumstances a degree of control over the numbers some species in a particular water may be found necessary after proper scientific evaluation. There needs to be clear specification regarding the type of nets which may be used in these circumstances. Gill nets, for instance, kill all species indiscriminately and may do more harm than good to the management of the fishery by removing the larger predators and allow their juvenile brethren to proliferate. They should be outlawed in favour of more selective and less damaging methods. Where the need to reduce the population of a particular species is found, the normal course should be to move the fish to a more suitable location if at all possible, rather than simply to slaughter them wholesale. In such circumstances, a part of the cost, for instance in certifying the health of the fish to be moved, should be borne by the proprietors who seek to remove them.

Introductions and fish movements

19. The Review appears to characterise introductions and fish movements as almost universally detrimental. As we note in para 14 above, however, many niches in the broader aquatic environment, and some whole habitats, would be lifeless without introduced species. Properly managed introductions and fish movements can enrich the biodiversity and the range of sporting opportunities in our waters without harming other inhabitants. Perhaps the best way to reflect that is to discard the semantic distinction between "native" and "introduced" species that features prominently in the Review. It might be preferable to speak instead of all species which have established breeding populations in Scotland as "naturalised". Even that distinction may be unhelpful. It would exclude rainbow trout, which do not breed here but are probably now pursued more extensively than brown trout. Species such as barbel or grass carp, which similarly do not seem to reproduce in Scotland, could also form important sporting amenities in future.

20. In some circumstances, however, we recognise that introductions or fish movements can have a direct adverse effect on existing populations of the same or other species. We believe that controls, and effective monitoring and enforcement machinery, are required with regard to introductions and movements of all species. The issue for control, however, should not be whether the species concerned is "native" to Scotland, but whether it is appropriate to the habitat in question and what impact the introduction might have on other occupants of that environment.

21. It is vital that any such controls do not prevent reasonable future movements and introductions of coarse species where they are suited to the waters concerned. There must be scope to progress from the status quo. There is nothing intrinsically undesirable about the spread of coarse fish species in Scotland. We recognise that considerable care would be required before introducing fish which could be expected to spread and multiply, but it is important to stress that this does not apply to all coarse species. Largely because of water temperature patterns, many species which are prolific in England, like carp, barbel, and, in most locations, chub, can barely breed at all in most Scottish waters. Any reproduction which does take place generally only makes up for attrition from age and predation. For practical purposes these species can be viewed as the equivalent of the sterile rainbow trout which form the stock of most commercial fisheries. In passing it should be noted that sterile stock fish of coarse species are not readily available.

22. With regard to species such as roach, dace or bream which can breed freely here, more caution is obviously required. Any risk will be at a minimum in "stank" waters unconnected to river systems, but they should not be restricted to those environments. For example, the lower reaches of some rivers offer good habitats for such species (and poor conditions for salmonids) and feature natural or man-made barriers like waterfalls or weirs which would contain stocks as effectively as if they were in a separate water.

23. Populations of some coarse species, especially those such as carp which do not breed freely, are fragile in Scotland. They are extremely vulnerable to disease and parasites carried by poor quality stock fish. We therefore also support the introduction of statutory measures which would require health certification of fish farms and hatcheries and permit stocking only from demonstrably safe sources.

24. We recognise that some possibly harmful introductions have taken place as a result of ill-advised stocking or the release of livebaits by coarse anglers. In passing, we would point out that many of these have not been Scottish Coarse anglers, but that does not excuse the practice. The Pike Anglers’ Club of Great Britain and Ireland has now, at the instigation of their Scottish Liaison Officer, enacted new rules forbidding translocation of livebaits. Many Scottish coarse fishing clubs already have provisions in their constitutions which prevent or restrict fish movements. SFCA discourages member organisations from stocking in situations where fish may damage existing populations in the water or escape into the wider environment, and we are presently reviewing our own constitution to stress the importance of the dangers concerned. The key to this issue is education and promotion of good practice. We would be happy to work with other angling organisations and conservation bodies to develop and disseminate codes of good practice in support of the kind of educational measures described in para 3.6 of the Review.

Coarse fisheries in Scotland

25. Para 4.9 of the Review is misleading in saying that the "distribution and abundance of game fish species" is responsible for the lesser degree of coarse fishing traditionally practised in Scotland. This may be one factor, but it is not the only one. It suggests that, given an equal choice, anglers will normally prefer to fish for game species. That may have been true a generation or two ago, but it is not universally the case today. Coarse angling is rapidly gaining popularity and opportunities to pursue coarse species are becoming more widespread as the small number of commercially operated or club-run waters starts to rise.

26. Some coarse fisheries in Scotland, especially the pike fisheries in waters such as Loch Lomond and Loch Awe, are unique and internationally important sporting assets. Other waters contain pike, roach or grayling in prolific numbers and / or specimen proportions. These could be equally valuable and popular, but they are unexploited. Sometimes this is because their existence is not publicised, or because riparian owners discourage fishing for coarse fish. 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.

27. We are pleased to see positive acknowledgement of the future potential for coarse angling in Scotland in the Review. We entirely agree that there is significant scope to expand the number and quality of our fisheries. It is important in this context to emphasise that the development of new specialised coarse fisheries should be only one part of that long-term expansion. There is ample scope for high quality mixed fisheries to be maintained, established or opened up in many Scottish waters. Some of that depends on permitting stocking to continue on a properly regulated basis, some of it would require better information-gathering and publicity. All of this will be facilitated if proprietors can be persuaded of the benefits of providing wider access for coarse fishing.

28. One way in which the Executive may be able to stimulate the expansion and development of coarse fisheries would be to promote the use of publicly-owned waters. Some local authorities, water authorities and other public bodies across Scotland have provided support, albeit fairly modestly, for coarse angling as a leisure activity,. Potential coarse fisheries exist in publicly-owned facilities such as reservoirs, country parks or "town stretches" of rivers all over Scotland, but access is far from universal, and coarse fishing, although welcomed in some areas, is not positively supported to the degree it might be. The former District Councils in Glasgow, Monklands, Clydesdale and Cumbernauld & Kilsyth, among others, have all encouraged the development of coarse fisheries in public park waters, for example, but the park lochs under the control of the former Edinburgh District Council remain closed to angling despite having healthy populations of coarse fish. Similarly, East of Scotland Water allows pike fishing on one or two of the reservoirs around Edinburgh, most of which are managed as trout fisheries, while on the other hand there are several reservoirs in the Glasgow area which have significant coarse fish populations but deny access for fishing of any kind.

29. We do not expect local authorities and public bodies to be universally obliged to make expensive provisions for coarse angling. However, there is scope for some of them to take a more open-minded stance to permitting fishing where stocks are already in existence. Some could also give more positive support, at minimal cost, by developing the facilities that are already available and managing them more effectively. This in a large measure is a matter for local angling clubs to pursue, with support from SFCA. However, it would be helpful if central government was also to signal to local government and other public bodies that providing and supporting coarse angling amenities was seen as desirable and should be the norm where possible.

Close seasons

30. The Review mentions close seasons in para 4.11, and also in a slightly different form in para 6.12. We are opposed, certainly for the time being, to the establishment of any general close season for coarse fish in Scotland on three main counts:-

1. We have concerns that a provision for coarse fish close seasons might be abused by a minority of proprietors who simply wish to discourage access;

2. Angling pressure on coarse fish in most waters is light and there is no evidence it currently causes significant damage to stocks;

3. Several of the species concerned are at their climatic extreme in Scotland and tend to spawn only when conditions approach the optimum, while others follow more conventional GB spawning patterns. The result is that some species or other might in fact be spawning at any one point between early February and mid July. This is too long for a general close season, and would have little benefit compared to the constraints it placed on angling.

31. If specific conservation measures become necessary in particular waters, we believe the establishment of "safe haven" areas for individual species at certain times would be a much more effective step. SFCA, and local coarse angling clubs, would be happy to work with fishery proprietors and conservation groups to identify and maintain the integrity of appropriate sites if this became necessary.

Angling methods and restrictions

32. We have long and bitter experience of the problems caused by coarse angling methods being outlawed by Scottish fishing legislation, and welcome the recognition in para 4.13 that these should be reconsidered. We unreservedly support the removal of such restrictions as an essential step in establishing a level playing field for coarse anglers in Scotland. 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. Scotland is the only country in Europe, and one of very few places in the world, where such discriminatory restrictions exist.

33. It is also important to recognise that other legislation, and local restrictions made primarily for the legitimate benefit of salmon and trout fisheries, can also have an adverse impact on coarse angling. For example, "fly only" or "no fixed-spool reel" rules debar most coarse fishing tactics, and bans on certain baits such as maggots, or on the use of spinning lures in waters containing pike, can also be unduly restrictive. The general ban on Sunday fishing for salmon and seatrout, while of no direct concern to us, is often extended by proprietors to debar all fishing on Sundays, creating unnecessary barriers to the pursuit of other species. Similarly, fishing for roach, pike, and in particular, grayling, can be difficult to obtain on salmon and trout waters during the annual close times for those species.

34. A more open-minded attitude to such restrictions is required, both in the law and in the rules of individual fisheries. An inventive, pragmatic approach will generally find a way to balance the interests of all parties so that bona fide coarse fishing can be pursued without harming other species in the water.

35. Fishery proprietors have every right to protect their stocks from accidental catches or deliberate abuse under the false pretext of pursuing coarse species. 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 gain access to the water. The distinctions in terms of tackle and methods are fairly easily spotted by an informed eye, however. We would be pleased to work together with national bodies and individual clubs 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.

36. One legitimate coarse fishing method which is largely unrestricted at present is the use of fish livebaits. Although primarily a pike fishing technique, this approach can be used for perch as well. There is also, incidentally, a long tradition in some parts of Scotland of fishing for brown trout with live minnows. We recognise that livebaiting has in the past been associated with one or two of the less welcome species introductions. It is also true that some people, including some anglers, dislike the idea of livebaiting on the basis that it appears cruel. These factors make this method a tempting target for legislators. We would support certain controls, but we emphatically oppose an outright ban on livebaiting.

37. The supporters of what might be described as the "ethical" argument against livebaiting are no doubt sincere and well-motivated. Their standpoint begs the question, however, whether livebaiting is any more cruel than sticking a hook into the fish we actually catch. A small minority of people hold that extreme view, but the tenor of all the debate surrounding Protecting and Promoting is that angling is a legitimate sport. This must start from the presumption that catching fish on a hook does not constitute an unacceptable act of cruelty. It follows that the same should apply to putting fish (or indeed any of the live invertebrates and molluscs we might use for the purpose) on a hook as bait.

38. The other argument against livebaiting is more pragmatic and centres on the need to avoid uncontrolled translocation of species. It is superficially attractive to suggest that if we don't allow livebaiting we will not get livebaits discarded where they shouldn't be. Unfortunately, this presupposes that people will observe such rules, or at least that we can police the situation to a degree which makes infringements unlikely. Neither is supportable by reference to experience. In fact, the very irresponsibility which is shown by discarding livebaits willy-nilly goes hand in hand with a cavalier approach to observing whatever regulations actually exist. The secret here is not an unenforceable blanket ban on a legitimate angling technique, but a programme of persuasion and education to discourage deviance coupled with a reasonable freedom to use the technique appropriately and responsibly. This could be achieved by limiting the use of livebaits to fish obtained in the same catchment, or in some cases the same water. On the persuasion and education side, it is worth stressing that the leading pike angling organisation in Britain, the PAC of GB & Ireland, now has a rule in its constitution (at the instigation of its Scottish Liaison Officer) forbidding translocation of livebaits. PAC is willing and well-placed to work with relevant bodies to ensure this message gets across and the rule is observed. A blanket ban would alienate the responsible pike anglers who would otherwise contribute to policing the deviants and minimising the translocation problem.

Management structures

39. There is a need for new catchment-based structures which encompass the management of fisheries for migratory and non-migratory species in fresh water. We are particularly concerned, however, to avoid the development of rigid structures based either on the creation of a "District Freshwater Fisheries Board" as a direct counterpart to the DSFB (the "parallel boards" model), or on the assumption by an expanded DSFB of responsibility for all freshwater species in the area (the "single body" model).

40. The "parallel boards" model fails to recognise the very different nature of migratory and non-migratory fisheries. By their nature, migratory fisheries are linked closely to each other in the context of a river system. Most of their management must perforce be conducted at that level rather than in isolation on individual beats. Proprietorial interests in many migratory fisheries are concentrated in comparatively few hands, which facilitates communication, encourages co-operation and permits co-ordination. Some freshwater fisheries have similar characteristics, but most are fairly small and many are self-contained. The relationship of freshwater fisheries with each other, and with migratory fisheries, is generally more fragmented as a result.

41. A "Freshwater Fisheries Board" simply could not be funded equitably or sufficiently. A levy on proprietors similar to that used to fund DSFBs would not be effective, especially in the case of coarse fisheries. Few coarse fisheries are operated commercially. Most of them are financially marginal and some are actually loss-making. Those which are managed at all are often run largely as amenities by the anglers who use them, or by hotels and guest houses as a sideline to attract a wider range of business. The remainder simply tick over, providing riparian owners a little pin money to compensate for the inconvenience of having people tramp over their land, but without any desire on their part for management or further development. In none of these cases is there any surplus income to be drawn into maintaining complex management structures. To add to the problem, there would be considerable complexity arising from the need, if they were being levied in any way to fund the structure, to provide effective representation for the literally thousands of riparian owners involved in the freshwater fisheries in any area.

42. The "single body" model shares the funding problems of the "parallel boards" structure insofar as it would be difficult to find an equitable way to generate revenue from all participants. We are conscious that the River Tweed Commission operates on "single body" lines, and has apparently resolved the funding issue to its own satisfaction. This, however, has to be seen in the context of the Tweed having among the highest of revenue potentials of all Scotland’s migratory fisheries, leaving some scope for magnanimity in the support for trout fishing in the river. At present the River Tweed Commission does little or nothing to promote the potential for coarse fishing in the river, and its remit does not extend at all to the stillwater fisheries in the locality. Other migratory fisheries which lie nearer the financial margins, particularly those worst hit by the current decline in catches of salmon and seatrout, would probably not have scope to encompass the management of fisheries for other species in their own rivers, far less those in the surrounding stillwaters.

43. More problematic still would be that matter of ensuring the balance of interests within such a single body. The disparity in revenue-generating potential between salmon and freshwater fisheries would make it almost inevitable that the interests of migratory fishery proprietors would prevail, or be perceived to prevail, in the decision-making processes within such a body. On many issues it would no doubt be possible for migratory and other interests to ring-fence their own territory and operate largely independent of each other. On others they may well share a common view. However, one of the main reasons to have such a body is to provide a forum for resolving the issues on which there is common, but potentially conflicting, interest. It is on these very issues that any imbalance of power would become, or appear to become, evident.

44. On such issues, it is to be hoped that participants would try to put aside their respective financial weight in the cause of achieving workable and mutually acceptable decisions. However, as noted earlier in relation to culling of coarse fish, and later in relation to access, the record of some proprietors, and even some DSFBs, on certain common issues does not offer confidence that this will happen in the short term in every area. It can work now in some, and it may evolve in others. Collaboration is desirable, not just because it would be more cost-effective but because it could genuinely enhance the quality of the fishery management in the locality for everyone’s benefit. However, it would not happen within a model which was imposed generally without consideration of present relationships and levels of trust. It should and can be nurtured within a flexible structure which starts from the point of bringing all interests in each area together on a level basis without regard to the balance of financial power, leaving them free to dictate the pace of convergance as constructive relationships develop.

45. Whatever the future shape of Scotland’s management and monitoring structures for freshwater fisheries, we would emphasise that the coarse fish and coarse angling perspective must be assured of a voice in those areas where any populations of coarse species are present. Only the Northern and Western Isles, Caithness, and parts of Sutherland are actually devoid of coarse species, so this would potentially apply throughout almost all of Scotland. Some areas which are presently without a local coarse angling club contain important fisheries used frequently by visiting coarse anglers from elsewhere in Scotland or beyond. In order for coarse angling interests to contribute to management and monitoring machinery in those areas we would wish SFCA, as the relevant governing body, to have the right to nominate a representative from outwith the locality to participate in whatever management structure is developed.

46. We presently have only limited involvement with the current scientific fisheries trusts, but we are seeking to extend this in future and make increasing use of their services. We will also be looking to find ways in which to engage with and support the SFCC in relation to coarse fisheries.

47. The Angling for Change group has put forward proposals on the matter of fishery management structures, and we endorse the AfC model. It is flexible enough to accommodate local variations, and to evolve as relationships grow.

Access for angling

48. Access to angling opportunities, or rather the lack of it, is arguably the most important issue to be addressed in this Review. The current system of Protection Orders, even taking account of the positive modifications introduced following the 97/98 review, still fails to meet the needs of coarse anglers (and, it seems to us, also trout anglers) or coarse species. It must be replaced by a much stronger mechanism.

49. The comments in para 6.5 understate the degree of concern which was voiced at the time of the 97/98 review. That review failed to remedy a number of fundamental flaws that had been made clear in submissions to the then-Secretary of State’s task force. Among the more glaring examples of this are that:-

1. The system still fails to provide for a mandatory Liaison Committee charged with the responsibility of effectively managing each Order to its fullest extent;

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

3. 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 not only "may have been" but quite clearly still are being used to reduce access to fishing.

4. 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 of them leave coarse anglers with almost insuperable restrictions on methods, seasons, permit availability and the extent to which facilities are focussed on local rather than visiting anglers.

50. Whatever is developed to replace the Protection Order system, it must be based on a concept of positive co-existence of all interests. In most cases we would hope that a constructive dialogue can be established which will stimulate and maintain that. In some cases, however, a big stick will be required. At present a freshwater fishery proprietor who denies reasonable access may forfeit the protection of the criminal law against poachers. Under the current system, however, the removal of a Protection Order is an "all or nothing" measure requiring action at First Minister level. We believe this has manifestly failed to act as a sufficient deterrent. There are enough examples of destructive or obstructive behaviour by the proprietors of waters covered by POs under the current system to make this an item which clearly requires stronger control. Mechanisms must exist to promote dialogue and offer safeguards against abuse. To achieve this, it should provide for:-

1. a properly funded mandatory standing body involving representatives of all interests, including the DSFB, in each locality with a role analogous to the current Liaison Committees which, among other things, would contribute to the First Minister’s decisions on the acceptance or otherwise of access proposals from fisheries seeking statutory protection;

2. the necessary power of sanction to persuade recalcitrant proprietors to allow genuine access and to manage the fishery for the benefit of all species in the water;

3. protection, and access provisions which cover a whole catchment area rather than the current piecemeal approach;

4. flexibility to enable the scope of protection in particular waters to be adjusted to meet changing circumstances, and to provide for fisheries which failed to comply with access arrangements being removed from its protection individually, rather than by way of an "all or nothing" withdrawal of an entire Order as at present;

5. a presumption that access for angling should be granted to the maximum degree consistent with sustainable exploitation of the resources of each species in each fishery. In this context it is important to stress that the level of angling pressure that is "sustainable" in respect of coarse fish will generally be more than that for salmonids . This is because all coarse fishing is conducted on a catch-and-release basis. Although there is inevitably a small degree of attrition from individual fish which have been stressed or deep-hooked, the stock is effectively recycled rather than removed on capture;

6. appropriate linkage between access and scientifically-based fishery management;

51. Dealing with reluctant proprietors is, however, the negative side of promoting better access. We are very much of the view that publicising fisheries, simplifying permit arrangements, and improving the accessibility of permission to fish are all extremely important and any new system must equally address these issues.

52. The Angling for Change submission examines the weaknesses and limitations of the PO system in some detail, and proposes structures which we believe would meet the needs we describe above. We wholeheartedly support that analysis and commend the AfC proposals.

Funding for new management structures

53. On this issue, which is not directly mentioned in the Review, we wish to express our support for the detailed proposals contained in the Angling for Change submission. We would add only our particularly firm opposition to the introduction of any form of "rod licences" as found in England and Wales. Unlike most Scottish game anglers, many of us have some experience of the way these arrangements function south of the border. That familiarity gives us no faith whatsoever that a rod-licence-based system offers the potential to raise sufficient funds in a cost-effective manner (around 60% of the EA budget apparently goes on collecting and policing licences) or of allocating them to the best effect in fisheries management.

54. Notwithstanding our rejection of the rod licence concept, we recognise that anglers who use what might be termed "wild" fisheries must expect to have to make some reasonable contribution to the funding of new management structures whose efforts will necessarily focus on those waters. We strongly favour the establishment of a system of "area permits" as a source of funding for local fisheries management. The successful arrangements currently in place for Loch Awe are a good example of this approach. They enable revenue to be collected and channelled cost-effectively to the local management body with a minimum of bureaucracy.