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