Save Our Fish.

[marshman]

The Otter Trust was effectively run down about 15 yrs ago or even more, so I would definitely discount that!!!!! Whilst they do actually exist, they no longer rear them to release them and are exist merely as a wetland centre, if that now!

[Vaughan]

Members are welcome to correct me but I am sure I have missed something, in all this :

What is the plausible benefit of this grand scheme, to the tax payer, the toll payer, the yachtsman, the fisherman or even any other pedestrian visitors of the "national park" persuasion?

Hoveton Great Broad (HGB) is part of an ancient navigation that has been deliberately allowed to become closed off to to any public access ever since well before the last War, despite great efforts by such as Herbert Woods, Jack Powles, Jimmy Hoseason and my own father, to re-open it, in the same way that was successful, in the case of Hoveton Little Broad.  It is the private domain of the landed gentry, even though recent changes in the official Ordnance Survey tide line mean that it is now tidal water and therefore closed illegally. 

Why does all this public money and disruption to the balance of nature have to be involved, in what simply amounts to cleaning the water in the Blofeld family's private garden  pond?

[rightsaidfred]

2 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Members are welcome to correct me but I am sure I have missed something, in all this :

What is the plausible benefit of this grand scheme, to the tax payer, the toll payer, the yachtsman, the fisherman or even any other pedestrian visitors of the "national park" persuasion?

Hoveton Great Broad (HGB) is part of an ancient navigation that has been deliberately allowed to become closed off to to any public access ever since well before the last War, despite great efforts by such as Herbert Woods, Jack Powles, Jimmy Hoseason and my own father, to re-open it, in the same way that was successful, in the case of Hoveton Little Broad.  It is the private domain of the landed gentry, even though recent changes in the official Ordnance Survey tide line mean that it is now tidal water and therefore closed illegally. 

Why does all this public money and disruption to the balance of nature have to be involved, in what simply amounts to cleaning the water in the Blofeld family's private garden  pond?

Vaughan You have got it spot on, there are rumours as to what the Blofeld``s long term aim is in regards of a private fishery but as it is only rumour I wont speculate further.

Fred

[JennyMorgan]

4 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

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

Unless I have misread the information then there are several interested parties, not just the BASG. The EA is certainly an interested party and during my time on the BASG committee I was well aware of their research regarding fish movements on the Bure & Thurne, and the possible implications for Broads Angling. A man called Steve Lane (EA) had/has highly detailed sonar pictures clearly showing vast shoals of bream transiting HGB.

As happens with Broads related quangos evidence can be withheld or presented with preferred end results in mind. It strikes me that none of us be can entirely confident in what is presented to us but having seen Steve Lane's sonar results with my own eyes I have to believe what I very clearly saw.

[JennyMorgan]

4 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

there are rumours as to what the Blofeld``s long term aim

Indeed there are but it's Natural England's long term aims that concern me!

[rightsaidfred]

Me to as I am sure are others, to many quangos and charitable bodies around with to loud a voice now.

Fred

[JennyMorgan]

More on this topic:

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/petition-to-reverse-norfolk-hoveton-great-broad-fish-barriers-1-6799053

[MauriceMynah]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

More on this topic:

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/petition-to-reverse-norfolk-hoveton-great-broad-fish-barriers-1-6799053

Oh Please!! Will people please stop quoting articles as printed by the EDP.

That journal will accept and print anything that fills the front page. I use the example Miles Weston. He will write things for that paper which will be quoted as "facts".

For heavens sake. that journal is open to anybody to write anything. It is not and will never be a reliable source for information.

No, I have not read the article, nor shall I. I'd rather believe the drunk sitting next to me in the pub.

[JennyMorgan]

Okay, not from the EDP!

Actually from James Knight of the Waveney River Centre. A pretty level head individual and a Broadlander through and through. Another 'interested party'!

"If you love the Broads then please sign this petition. Already millions of pounds of public money have been committed to dredging this private Broad without restoring navigation rights. Now the Environment Agency have ignored all the science and agreed to close the Broad to fish as well, despite it being the primary spawning ground for bream. This will create a long-term catastrophe for angling, tourism - and the fish themselves. Sign and share!"

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

[floydraser]

Confused (easily) of the Midlands here. 

I'm not trying to wind anyone up here but some of the info is a bit confusing to the visitor. 

Who closed HGB to navigation and why?

Why was it dredged if not for navigation? Something to do with the grey patches on Google Earth, is that where they dumped the silt for weedbeds?

Does Blofeld own the broad or just the bank?

[JennyMorgan]

4 minutes ago, floydraser said:

Who closed HGB to navigation and why?

Why was it dredged if not for navigation? Something to do with the grey patches on Google Earth, is that where they dumped the silt for weedbeds?

Does Blofeld own the broad or just the bank?

HGB was grabbed by the Blofield family who own the banks and the bottom of the Broad but do not and cannot own the tidal water that runs through the Broad. Presumably they didn't wish to have us hoi-paloi traipsing across their garden pond!

[floydraser]

3 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

HGB was grabbed by the Blofield family who own the banks and the bottom of the Broad but do not and cannot own the tidal water that runs through the Broad. Presumably they didn't wish to have us hoi-paloi traipsing across their garden pond!

Well Peter, I was hoping for a slightly more comprehensive and constructive answer, but that'll do for starters!

[Vaughan]

7 minutes ago, floydraser said:

Who closed HGB to navigation and why?

Why was it dredged if not for navigation? Something to do with the grey patches on Google Earth, is that where they dumped the silt for weedbeds?

Does Blofeld own the broad or just the bank?

Taking your questions in order :

The landowner closed off the broad by fencing across it, a long time ago, as they said it had "fallen into disuse".  The same applied to Black Horse Broad (Little Hoveton), Cockshoot, and Ranworth Inner Broad.  After the War, a campaign led by Herbert Woods was successful in re-opening Black Horse, but not Ranworth inner or HGB.  Blakes took out the lease on Malthouse Broad in the late 40s, otherwise that would also be closed today.

I don't think the broad has ever been dredged since the War and I remember canoe-ing across it (dodging the gamekeeper) in the 50s, when it was very shallow, especially in Hudson's Bay.

This revolves around the law of tidal water, which is determined by the line drawn on the Ordnance Survey map.  In the 50s this line was at the downstream entrance of HGB, so in law, Blofeld owned the bottom of the broad and also the water in it.  He did not own the water in Black Horse Broad as it was tidal, and this is how Herbert Woods won his case.  This also means that Ranworth Inner Broad is closed illegally, as it is tidal water.  Nowadays, the official tide line has moved upriver to just north of Wroxham Broad, which means that HGB is tidal and should be open to navigation across it.

The problem, of course, is who is willing to spend enough money to prove this in court?  Meantime, a lot of public money seems to be proposed, for improvements to a piece of "English Nature" which will still remain closed to the public, who will be paying for it.

[Smoggy]

I've signed purely on the public money spent on private land point, I don't care about fishing so not on that point.

And a stilted up broad ends up as Carr woodland which is also valuable habitat and no less natural than a broad.

[floydraser]

10 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I don't think the broad has ever been dredged since the War and I remember canoe-ing across it (dodging the gamekeeper) in the 50s, when it was very shallow, especially in Hudson's Bay.

Thank you Vaughan. The dredging is referred to in JM's quoting of James Knight.

[floydraser]

Has anyone approached the current Thomas Blofeld for his views? As someone interested in promoting tourism in the area (Bewilderwood) I would have thought he could be open to the idea of opening the broad and providing moorings etc? 

[SteveO]

You tamper with a complex ecosystem like HGB at your peril. Disrupting the food chain by taking out fish is likely to have unpredictable impacts both higher up and lower down  the pyramid, affecting aquatic invertebrates and plants in the broad in all kinds of ways and otter, kingfisher and predator fish populations in the whole surrounding area. Yes, it might be aesthetically pleasing to have clear water for Mr Blofeld to gaze upon, but at what cost?

Beware the law of unintended consequences!

[floydraser]

Apart from the ecosystem I'm sure there must be something more written between the lines which I'm struggling to read, but I would take a wild guess it may be money.

What could be the deterrents keeping a broad closed? Do the BA suddenly have a bigger maintenance job if it were opened? Greater responsibility for safety?

Just trying to see the broader argument here.

[vanessan]

1 hour ago, floydraser said:

Just trying to see the broader argument here.

[marshman]

Oh dear - if James has stuck his oar in, then it must be important!! 

To those who wish to understand the logic of mud pumping Broads it is actually to keep them alive - or so I  understand!! If they become too shallow the plants die and they become sterile. The idea of keeping fish out is to stop them eating the new growth - if they dont keep them out initially the fish eat the emerging growth and the plants die. If we want to upset the eco system, then that is the best way to do it! Pump it and they survive - leave it and they die!!

Where they have done it, the Broads have recovered - the trouble is they are ones which public cannot access such as Barnby and Upton - however wildlife can!!!!!

[rightsaidfred]

6 hours ago, marshman said:

Oh dear - if James has stuck his oar in, then it must be important!! 

To those who wish to understand the logic of mud pumping Broads it is actually to keep them alive - or so I  understand!! If they become too shallow the plants die and they become sterile. The idea of keeping fish out is to stop them eating the new growth - if they dont keep them out initially the fish eat the emerging growth and the plants die. If we want to upset the eco system, then that is the best way to do it! Pump it and they survive - leave it and they die!!

Where they have done it, the Broads have recovered - the trouble is they are ones which public cannot access such as Barnby and Upton - however wildlife can!!!!!

Not to sure what your trying to say, I dont think anyone is objecting to the Broad being dredged by whatever means, in fact many would probably say its long overdue, with your knowledge of the broads you will know better than I that the wherries stopped using their passage through HGB because it bacame to shallow prior to its closeure in 1890.

I am also unsure what the relevance is of the other two Broads as they are both landlocked and unless you can tell me otherwise no fish were removed.

As to freshwater fish eating weed in my experiance they dont eat most waterweeds only filamentatious algae like silkweed and blanketweed, the one exception are carp which coincidently owners of landlocked waters stock to create high value fisheries.

One factor that hasnt been mentioned when talking of highly coloured water the main inhibitor of weed growth is the turbulence caused by wind action on very shallow highly silted stillwaters.

The only concerns about HGB is not the dredging but the use of public funds to maintain an area where the public are largely excluded and preventing of fish Pike as well as Bream migrating in some cases miles to traditional spawning grounds, this has been proven with tagging and is accepted as to its value by the EAs own fishery advisors as well as other scientifuc bodies.

Fred

[rightsaidfred]

The petition seems to be progressing reasonably well but I would urge anyone concerned about the long term future of the Broads as an ecological entity and commercialy viable resource regardless of whether they are anglers or not to sign this petition.

Fred 

[Londonlad1985]

This is an interesting little video given to me by the BASG, it shows the tracking of bream ID 50645 during the period Feb-May 2018 and the migration to its spawning grounds in Hoveton Great Broad and Hudsons Bay. The data was provided by Bournemouth University. 

It's amazing how far the humble bream will travel to spawn, all those people holidaying on their boats or the chalets in Potter have no idea they're on a wildlife migration route.

[Londonlad1985]

I don't think the video upload worked. Here's a link to the video. 

https://basg.online/northern-broads-track-spring-2018/

[JennyMorgan]

Mention of the Angling Trust & Fish on various posts, this is they:

https://anglingtrust.net/about-us/about-fish-legal/