Jump to content

Save Our Fish.


JennyMorgan

Recommended Posts

Oh - I thought this may be a petition about a barrier at Yarmouth to halt salt water surges - they don't do a lot to help stocks either.

Whilst I understand their concern, I would have thought if stocks were really under threat, would not the EA have objected ????

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would never pretend to know anything about fishing but I do know that the best way to improve water quality and promote weed growth on an almost enclosed broad with no tidal flow through it, is to remove accumulated bottom silt by mud pumping.

Just as they did with spectacular success on Cockshoot Broad in the 60s.

The difference is almost instantaneous as the weed grows back at once.  You don't have wait 8 or 10 years as seems to be the case with this grand scheme to play with the balance of nature.

But then, what would I know?  I haven't got an "Ology".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, marshman said:

Oh - I thought this may be a petition about a barrier at Yarmouth to halt salt water surges - they don't do a lot to help stocks either.

Whilst I understand their concern, I would have thought if stocks were really under threat, would not the EA have objected ????

No it is the EA flying in the face of all the available scientific evidence who have granted the licence to Natural England.

Fred 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But note Vaughans post above!! Fish destroy the plant life - note his comments about Cockshoot and it is also very evident on Barton within the fish barriers!  'Fraid you cannot have it all ways!

Although having said I am concerned too at the amount of time it will take - just seems another excuse to have a private Broad to me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Natural England"??? Is it just me or is there some irony in them wanting to stop fish breeding where nature tells them to?

So if there's a housing shortage in a certain area and we don't want to carve up any more land....?

Before it goes ahead, everyone who works for NE should be forced to sleep in a separate room to their natural partners (should they be so blessed) to get an idea of what the fish feel like.

Sorry, serious subject.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, marshman said:

But note Vaughans post above!! Fish destroy the plant life - note his comments about Cockshoot and it is also very evident on Barton within the fish barriers!  'Fraid you cannot have it all ways!

Although having said I am concerned too at the amount of time it will take - just seems another excuse to have a private Broad to me!

Not strictly true its lack of light that stunts weed growth especially on silted up semi stagnant waters, there is plenty of weed and fish in the rivers and several other broads.

Fred

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given further thought that bio-diversity is at the base of water managment a question comes to mind in respect of this situation.

If NE are so keen to dredge and remove fish in particular Bream from a privately owned Broad that is closed to navigation why are they reluctant to allow proper dredging of a highly silted up Broad thats open to navigation and has a high population of fish in particular Bream ie the upper Thurne system and Hickling Broad in particular.

Fred

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hickling Broad continues to be dredged and they have also dredged Heigham Sound and Waxham Cut as well as Catfield Dyke. However the big issue remains the disposal of spoil in that area with it all having to be put somewhere.

In comparison, I do not know how deep Hoveton is compared to Hickling but I suspect the latter is deeper as I know it does have more weed growth, including some pretty rare stuff!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, marshman said:

Hickling Broad continues to be dredged and they have also dredged Heigham Sound and Waxham Cut as well as Catfield Dyke. However the big issue remains the disposal of spoil in that area with it all having to be put somewhere.

In comparison, I do not know how deep Hoveton is compared to Hickling but I suspect the latter is deeper as I know it does have more weed growth, including some pretty rare stuff!!

Exactly but it also has a very high density of fish in particular Bream with very large catches so why are they suddenly an issue with HGB which is an important spawning ground for both Bream and Pike.

Fred

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps because Hickling is deeper than Hoveton? I have no real idea how deep HGB is - do you have the details??? My understanding is that it is very shallow - if so it will have less weed, if any, which is why it is being mud pumped I guess.

The petition needs just over 99k signatures to get a debate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, marshman said:

Perhaps because Hickling is deeper than Hoveton? I have no real idea how deep HGB is - do you have the details??? My understanding is that it is very shallow - if so it will have less weed, if any, which is why it is being mud pumped I guess.

The petition needs just over 99k signatures to get a debate.

No problem with the dredging its probably long overdue, the issue here is the exclusion of fish how often have we had comments about interfering with nature including yourself.

Fred

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, Barton has seen some success with excluding fish from certain areas to allow plant regrowth but they didn't bother at Upton - not sure what criteria they use I am afraid. Not sure if they took the fish out of Cockshoot or not but I suspect not.( Perhaps someone wiser than me can remember?? )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, marshman said:

To be fair, Barton has seen some success with excluding fish from certain areas to allow plant regrowth but they didn't bother at Upton - not sure what criteria they use I am afraid. Not sure if they took the fish out of Cockshoot or not but I suspect not.( Perhaps someone wiser than me can remember?? )

I to am no expert although over nearly 70 years angling and fish keeping I have spent some time with various people involved in fishery management, from what I learnt the only sure way to remove all fish was through poisoning and it is virtually impossible to prevent natural restocking, I am sure even those areas on Barton contain fish now if only from the ingress of fry and spawn carried by birds.

Fred

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love the part that describes the EA as a competent authority. 
How on earth, this one or any other, can the EA  grant a license to do anything to such a body as NE. 

Remember them. Let Norfolk flood. Hmm 

Not a competent body amongst the lot of them. Dogma, agenda and decision based evidence making. Lordy you couldn’t make this up !!!

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What worries me, apart from the ecology of the Broads, is the the power of Natural England. They are not just advising on this project, it has become theirs. Despite all the best scientific advice they are ploughing ahead, come hell or high water. It is an abuse of position, plain and simple. Natural England, another quango with an agenda, this is not good. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

What worries me, apart from the ecology of the Broads, is the the power of Natural England. They are not just advising on this project, it has become theirs. Despite all the best scientific advice they are ploughing ahead, come hell or high water. It is an abuse of position, plain and simple. Natural England, another quango with an agenda, this is not good. 

Having had a quick look around to see who Natural England are, it seems to me that they are a bunch of stuffed shirts looking for something to do. If someone shouts loud enough they do something then quietly undo it later. If enough people protest I would think this business will get reversed. If not now, later but quietly so they can all say they did their jobs. And so the world goes on.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi I'm really glad someone other than me started this thread, thanks JM, I don't use the forum as much as I used to, but I've been banging on about this for months on the FB group. Regardless of the people and politics it's the broads that will suffer if this goes ahead. 

I am a keen pleasure angler so have an interest in that camp, however I do feel this issue is not just about fishing, in fact it's a shame that it's down to anglers to lead on this issue. Bream which will likely bear the brunt of this disaster are a fantastic species with their own unique charm, they're big eyed, and docile and in my opinion very striking. Imagine the distress that will be caused when they migrate from Hickling Broad to HGB to spawn as they have done for generations and find a fence erected. This will likely cause them to not to spawn and their numbers to dwindle. If these creatures were birds or furry animals such as the sand martins netted from their cliffs or the Tesco house martins then anglers wouldn't need to lead this charge. The general public would have made its feelings known. Sadly fish are a bit cold and wet, and invisible to many. 

The bream are also a huge part of the food chain in the broads, feeding a huge number of predators of all shapes and sizes, the vast shoals of fry will feed lots of other fish, and also carnivorous insect larvae such as the great diving beetle and the various dragon and damsel flies, which feed lots of bird life. As the bream get bigger, they'll feed the apex predators, Herons, Terns, Grebe, Cormorants, Pike, and otters, while many of these predators may also die out some of the more intelligent ones may seek other prey, currently otters and herons will take young water fowl However there are already reports of otters opportunisticly taking fully grown geese where they are fed by tourists in wroxham, and lots of people blame the lack of moorhens on the broads on otters. Fewer fish for them to eat will inevitably lead to them seeking out a new food source. 

As a broads boater before I was a broads angler I've seen the conflict that can arise between activities, but I love the  diversity of the wildlife you can see on the broads, whether I'm fishing or boating or walking or cycling and I fear for it.

Aside from the destruction of an eco system, pleasure anglers on holdiays brings a huge amount of money to the broads economy, lots of the general tourists are also anglers and there aren't many families out on a hire boat that don't drown a few maggots while they're out and afloat. 

I'm a member of BASG and admin on their FB page. However I'm making this post in a personal capacity. I did raise the petition in their behalf and I'd be grateful if you could sign it.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/334111

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right PW - I don't know enough about it it but was merely assuming that the EA themselves have their own scientific advisers who have agreed to it. I will leave the discussion to those who are fishermen and clearly know more than I do!!

So why did the EA appear to change their mind? Incidentally whilst out on the rivers I did bump into the EA guys who where checking the transmitters in some fish - clever stuff!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, marshman said:

You are right PW - I don't know enough about it it but was merely assuming that the EA themselves have their own scientific advisers who have agreed to it. I will leave the discussion to those who are fishermen and clearly know more than I do!!

So why did the EA appear to change their mind? Incidentally whilst out on the rivers I did bump into the EA guys who where checking the transmitters in some fish - clever stuff!!

Sadly the EA ignored their own local and national fisheries team, they strongly advised against installing the barriers and recognised that it will be detrimental to the fishery. Their argument for putting in the barriers were that bream were a common fish and that this one colony would have little impact on the species nationally. In other words "stuff the broads bream" This comes from a telephone conversation with the EA's East Anglia fisheries manager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Peter says...     

4 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Despite all the best scientific advice they are ploughing ahead, come hell or high water.

Marshman modifies it to

3 hours ago, marshman said:

Best scientific evidence from one interested party???

I would suggest that it should read...

Best scientific evidence from THE interested party, 

I say this as I can't think of any other "interested party" that might have scientific advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

So Peter says...     

Marshman modifies it to

I would suggest that it should read...

Best scientific evidence from THE interested party, 

I say this as I can't think of any other "interested party" that might have scientific advice.

Now if it was scientific advice from the RSPB on bird breeding colonies would that qualify as one interested party? or the Otter trust on their protection.

Fred

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.