On this page:

Additional Comments - Forum 2 Page 1

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS SHEET - FORUM 2 PAGE 1

Alan Ayre: The Grayling Society

It was obvious that several delegates today weren't as au fait as they might have been with the topics the steering group (and AfC before it) has been tackling. It was a failing of AfC that the angling public was not widely enough appraised of the work being done on their behalf, and the steering group seems to be labouring under the same difficulty. Some information is being made available on the web site, but many anglers I've spoken with haven't been aware of the site or the consultation, some having no access to a PC. Efforts should be made to reach such people, perhaps through announcements in fishing magazines or/and fliers in tackle shops etc.

Until recently I hadn't read Peter Maitland's 1997 paper 'A Commentary on the Operation of Pos' that he wrote for WWF. This provides an excellent introduction to the problems of Pos and what should be done about them. It may be eight years old but is still very pertinent and should be bedside reading for all anglers. Peter might be persuaded to update it, but even without that it is still a useful vehicle to acquaint more anglers with ideas on improving the legislation.

I thought the venue today was excellent.

Steve Tapley: Pike Anglers Alliance For Scotland

If we consider banning live baiting on the ethics that it is cruel, how can we justify fishing for fish and putting hooks into them and then pulling them in, handling them and then throwing them back.

Legislation must consider pond own from the public.

Using fish from the system that is being fished is workable. Banning it will not prevent it from carrying on, it will send it underground unless we can police it properly on all the waters in Scotland, not just the popular lochs.

If we are talking about alien fish what do we class rainbow trout as? As too many lochs in Scotland re being polluted by these fish, especially when escaping from the farms, with little come back from the authorities. If it is acceptable to release these fish into various environments then why is other live fish such an issue. Rainbow trout have the capability to eat all forms of salmonid smolts in these environments.

Where is the evidence that ruffe were used as livebait as they are atrocious swimmers. How did the other species get there.

Barbel where is the photographic evidence of this offence.

Richard McKenzie: Loch Awe Improvement Association

The LAIA were sorry to be unable to send a representative to the recent Forum. However our Development Committee has asked for the following views and opinions to be forwarded to SEERAD for consideration.

1. Use of Live Bait - Totally prohibited

2. Regulation of Live Fish Movements - Current legislation sufficient if strictly enforced and publicised

3. Gaffs, Tailers, Knotted Nets etc - Prohibited

4. Annual and Weekly Closed Times - Remain the same

5. Multiple Rods - As per LAIA conditions - see ticket enclosed

6. Rod Licences - Presumed purpose to raise money. This committee's considered opinion is the cost of implementation would be too high for a Licence fee which would be politically acceptable to legislate for

Therefore - Against a National Rod Licence

7. Proposed Model for Legislation and Management of Fisheries in Argyll the formation of an Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board is being formed to replace small and fragmented District Salmon Boards. Therefore the following suggestion is to take the words 'Salmon' out of the title. This would leave the Board responsible for all species. The Board would be comprised of all Bodies concerned.

Under this Board local Improvement Associations would manage all species in the area of their responsibility. Improvement Associations would continue to charge for their fishings as now and would therefore be self funded.

The Board and Improvement Associations would use the services of, in our case, the Argyll Fisheries Trust for all scientific research, monitoring and management advice.

There is great concern that under the present Protection Order system, individuals with fishing rights can opt out of the P O and sell their permission to fish waters improved at Improvement Associations expense. These loop holes need addressing.

Finally, we wish to state that a well run Improvement Association under the Protection Order legislation can be successful in maintaining a fishery which is ecologically and environmentally sustainable, a benefit to fishermen and to the local community.

80 Representatives from Pike Anglers Alliance For Scotland

Proposed Legislation on the Method of Live Fish as Bait

I am writing to you to voice my concerns on the recent Freshwater Fisheries Forum on the 4th of February. As a pike angler I feel that this is an important and valid method and one that should be retained. The speaker concerned was extremely negative and gave a very biased and personal view against.

The method of using live fish as bait is accepted in many countries, especially those in which Pike (Esox lucius) and relatives are found. Pike as a predatory fish by its very nature hunts live prey and in certain circumstances will not accept scavenging for dead fish. The method itself does not require the transfer of fish as your speaker inferred.

The use of live baits is one of the most natural presentations an angler can achieve and is widely practiced in the pursuit of predatory fish, this is backed up by scientific research (references can be made available). By following the Pike Anglers Alliance for Scotland, code of conduct for responsible live baiting this method poses no threat to indigenous fish species in turn posing no grounds for legislation against the method.

Duncan Clark: Auchterarder AC

I have commented at length to previous consultations on PO review, protecting and promoting etc covering many of these issues. I presume the Steering Group has access to these if not I can supply copies.

Alexander Fell: Forth Fisheries Foundation

I was pleased to attend the meeting on the 4th of February and very interested in the high level of support for many matters which might be covered in the coming Freshwater Fisheries Legislation. However I was most concerned to hear that future arrangements for the sustainable management of all freshwater species and the means of financing them would no longer be included in the coming Bill.

My colleagues and I believe that it would be preferable for the proposed freshwater Fisheries Legislation to be postponed until such time that arrangements for the future management of all species can be included. We fear that if the proposed Bill proceeds in 2006/7 there will not be another opportunity for Fishery Legislation to include management arrangements for a number of years to come. That is not to say that we are against items which may now be included in the proposed Bill, but that if the goal is sustainable management, this aspect must be given priority above all other issues. Indeed to change and possibly expand access to natural wild fisheries in advance of putting in place appropriate management structures, is likely to lead to a situation quite contradictory to sustainable management.

A further matter which concerns me, and which I raised at the forum, is the fact that we have different legislation for Sea-Trout and Wild Brown Trout which current scientific advice tells us are one and the same species. The current legislation would appear to originate from an historical misunderstanding and a desire to reduce Brown Trout to assist stocks of Sea-Trout and salmon. Surely, if future management is to be scientifically based, this anomaly needs to be addressed in any proposed legislation and Wild Brown Trout given the same protection as Sea-Trout? I appreciate the political difficulty of facing up to this issue but we are doing future generations a disservice if we do not frame legislation on best current scientifically based advice.

I would be interested in your thoughts on these issues. As previously mentioned from a recent visits to Iceland, I am most impressed with many of their arrangements and regulations for the sustainable management and improvement of their fisheries and we could perhaps learn much from their experience.

Back to contributor list | Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4

Page updated: Tuesday, June 14, 2005