ADDITIONAL COMMENTS SHEET - FORUM2 PAGE 4
PROPOSALS FOR MANAGEMENT OF FISHERIES RESOURCES
Peter Kennedy: River Doon Salmon Fishery
Board
The correct management structure is vital if the future
of fishing is to be successful.
A model of a draft management structure must now be
drawn up and costed. To proceed further we need this model
even if it needs to be greatly altered.
Funding any new management is the key to workability.
Whereas "status quo" is not widely acceptable without
proper funding, one may have to revert to that.
Alan Ayre: The Grayling Society
An excellent presentation by Andrew Wallace who left no
one in any doubt about the importance of finding sufficient
funding to allow effective management to flourish.
Encouraging to see so many opted to support a rod licence,
which is surely a logical way of getting anglers to
contribute despite the problems experienced in England and
Wales. The antipathy existing between some salmon and other
species interests will be a difficult nut to crack,
requiring considerable dialogue between parties and
education of the die-hards on both sides to eliminate much
of the current suspicions and intransigence.
Gary Clarkson: Scottish Federation For Coarse
Angling
I fully support the idea of a catchment based unitary
structure to manage all our fisheries. Funding must be
provided by anglers and supported by public funding. All
species groups must be represented fairly.
Drew Jamieson: Consultative Committee
Can we link fisheries more closely with Health,
Education and Social Services in arguments for funding.
Jim Henderson: Nith DSFB
One presentation touched on the subject of rod licensing
to fund management structures. There will be a cost
involved with the administration of these licences but no
mention has been made regarding the enforcement of these
licences. Will it be the existing DSFB bailiffs that will
enforce the system, funded by the salmon sector?
Alastair McPhee: Pike Anglers Alliance For
Scotland
Very positive - rod licences must be the way forward
along with salmon levies.
Need for root and branch reform along ways as described
required to ensure all species are valued equally.
Rab Lee: Pike Anglers Alliance For
Scotland
A unified organisation to cover all aspects of fishing
and species would offer much fairer treatment of all
anglers.
Rod licences would provide a funding for anglers by
anglers. As long as the majority of the money went back
into fishing itself, rather than just generate money to aid
its own collection. It would also be important that the
area of rod licences were adequately inspected and
policed.
R Dalrymple: Stinchar DSFB
If a new management system is to be put in place. The
funding of it should be arranged before it is put in place.
Small improvements relating to the current system providing
increased public funding for non-migratory species.
Peter Reith: Federation of Border Angling
Associations
The need for an expensive management structure over and
above existing structures has not been justified. The
system in the River Tweed catchment area works well without
any extra public money - nobody has explained what the
management structure would provide in addition to what we
have now. Nobody has explained why the Tweed solution would
not work elsewhere.
There needs to be a very good case put to justify a tax
on anglers that would undoubtedly reduce the number of
casual anglers.
M C Smith: Tay DSFB
With the Land Reform Bill many anglers have been
effectively dis-enfranchised by other users. Canoes/rafts
etc contribute nothing towards riverbank maintenance -
cutting barks, seats, styles, litter etc.
John Hamilton: River Girvan DSFB
Care must be taken in funding, as Andrew Wallace points
out. Fishing will not be well served and neither will
conservation of the costs of regulation, licensing of
improvements, levies, rod licences, fishing permits etc,
are all priced out. My impression so far is that everything
proposed will cost more and the benefits remain unclear for
the River Girvan. There should be some thought given that
all users of rivers should help pay for their management,
not just fishers, also farmers (irrigation) canoeists,
industry (water abstraction) power companies (hydro
electric) etc.
Craig Campbell: NFU Scotland
Q: Would it be better to delay legislation?
A: Yes. If the 2006 time slot is taken for legislation
to implement minor matters, it is unlikely parliamentary
time will be given for fishing management structures for a
very long time. I suggest that the minor, if important,
matters could be enhanced by cross reference to a fully
worked-up proposal for statutory unitary authorities. We
might be ready in, say 2008. Better not throw the
opportunity away.
Simon McKelvey: Conon DSFB
Need to reduce the number of organisations involved in
fishery management.
Rod licence would be useful management tool regardless
of any revenue raised.
Proposed legislation needs proper funding to enforce
it.
Consider expanding unitary structure to a regional
basis. Could combine staff and resources more
effectively.
Funding essential to success of new structures.
Development of training opportunities within the
industry may bring in some funding.
John Ellis: Lowland Canals Angling Partnership
Scotland
Define the term "fishery" - is it an adequate ecosystem
or a place where people go fishing. In my view fisheries
and angling are different.
How will Water Framework Directive fit in.
If a rod licence is introduced - proper representative
committees need to be set up (not EA Regional Fisheries
committees which are ignored by EA). Could it be considered
making certain public owned waters eg Council owned, B W
owned canals, available for fishing without further charge
to rod tax payers. Don't call it a rod licence - rename
it.
There is a need to know what really needs to be spent.
Paul Knights comments did not necessarily represent the
majority of angling views on rod licences in England -
NAFAC which represents 400,000 anglers supported by the
Tory Party abolition of rod licences. Shall other river
users contribute to payment for management of the aquatic
ecosystem. Should there be a canoe tax, binocular tax etc.
Salmon rod licence should be more expensive than coarse and
trout licence - as in England & Wales. Strongly agree
that canoes should contribute - maybe similar form of
licensing.
Jon Gibb : River Lochy Association (LDSFB,
LFT)
Local Catchment Management
The overall sentiment of the conference (and indeed the
Steering Group) should be that rivers should be managed on
a 'catchment' and 'local' basis. This is surely the only
sensible way in which to manage Scotland's very diverse
fisheries. However, it was also suggested (by David
Dunkley) at the conference that should any local unitary
management body make any decisions at a local level,
ultimately these decisions would have to be approved by
Ministers. I don't really see that this takes us very far
forward then from the current status quo (especially in
salmon management) where Fishery Boards can make decisions
and use the Salmon Conservation Act but everything must
pass through Ministers. Not only does this add timely
bureaucracy but I would question whether passing everything
through Ministers is really "local management". I
appreciate that there must be checks and balances on all
management decisions/actions taken, but should there be
appropriate professional representation on the proposed
local unitary management body, these checks should take
place without burdening Edinburgh with further work. The
new system should be confident in its own capabilities and
to be a such must surely have properly devolved and truly
local management.
Funding
There was talk of the 'chicken and egg' scenario with
regards to funding at the conference. I am in no doubt at
all that funding must come before management bodies are set
up. The SE seem to think that this should be the other way
round. Unless funding is provided to set these bodies and
infrastructure up, already pitifully short funds will be
used that are desperately needed for current and ongoing
work.
W M Shearer: Salmon Net Fishing Association of
Scotland
A unitary structure based on the River Tweed example
which already includes all freshwater species would at
first glance seem to be the most attractive option and
could be the sensible way forward for many district fishery
boards. However, the smaller boards would find funding from
within for such a structure, which would require to be
serviced by a range of full-time staff which many presently
do not have virtually impossible. Relatively soon these
boards will have to meet the costs of servicing the
Controlled Activities Order. This will be a real hardship
and place an unbearable load on their part-time staff.
By a quirk of nature most of the smaller district
fishery boards are not only saddled with the highest
density of lochs within their catchment but also the trout
populations which will require major funds to maintain and
protect. Furthermore, the north and west lack 'put and take
fisheries' of any consequence which would have been a
source of additional finance if a licensing system was to
be introduced. The north, in particular, also lacks a
diversity of species of catchable size other than salmonids
to support fisheries which could have provided and
income.
Joining more boards into a single management structure
would increase the income but the funding required to be
raised to manage the proportionate greater increase in the
number of lochs would far outweigh the greater revenue.
Therefore, structures comparable with the west coast
network of fishery trusts operating in conjunction with the
present boards but managing all species except salmon would
seem to best fit the position on the ground in the north.
Such a system has worked extremely satisfactory on the west
where the mixture of rivers and lochs is not dissimilar to
elsewhere in the highlands. It would be able to raise its
own finance and not be governed by the statutory
restrictions which limit the powers which boards have in
this field. In addition, smaller river proprietors would
not be removed any more distant form the management of
their own rivers or fisheries than at present, as any
increase in board members would be minimal. This is most
important as their expertise and local knowledge are
invaluable.
There is a real need to discuss this matter before
detailed management plans are formulated.
The speakers and during the discussion there were a
number of suggestions how best the dwindling number of
anglers should be maintained and even increased but
throughout the day there was little reference to the need
to maintain the mature fish populations so that they can
withstand the additional pressures. This requirement is
probably more difficult but absolutely essential. In the
literature there is ample evidence of the fragility of many
highland salmonid populations and the ease with which they
can be extinguished by minimal increases in angler
pressure. There is a real need to discuss this matter and
formulate as a very minimum tentative suggestions before
detailed management plans are formulated.
Duncan Clark: Auchterarder AC
It is still not clear to many fisherman that there is no
such thing as a "free lunch" and that if we want any
organisation to do anything to improve fishings there is a
price to be paid.
In my view the 'rod licence' proposal whilst perhaps not
too popular appears to be the only means of ensuring a
fishing body gets the finance needed. That body should
probably be the existing DSFB's provided their current bias
to migratory fish can be eradicated.
One difficulty with any such organisation would be
assessing effective performance. Many anglers suffer from a
'limit bag itus' and can be highly critical should they
fail to catch what they feel they should. Whilst much of
this is down to 'put & take' fishery logic I have
experience of it on the River Earn Improvement Association
which does much good work on the river but we are
continually being asked by anglers "What does REIA do for
us?" Any such body would have to provide a clear account of
its activities and achievements.
Back to contributor list |
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 | Page 4