ANGLERS TO BLOCKADE HEIGHAM SOUND.

[Guest DAYTONA-BILL]

Hi all, i`ve just read in the Anglers mail (or times?), that local anglers are going to try and "blockade" Heigham sound to stop the much overdue dredging. They are trying to make people believe the BA will be doing it at "the wrong time" and will cause some algie problem that will kill all the fish?. Well, when will be the "right time"?. Probably NEVER if they had their way .

[Guest]

Hi all, i`ve just read in the Anglers mail (or times?), that local anglers are going to try and "blockade" Heigham sound to stop the much overdue dredging. They are trying to make people believe the BA will be doing it at "the wrong time" and will cause some algie problem that will kill all the fish?. Well, when will be the "right time"?. Probably NEVER if they had their way .

Hi Neil

i say alot of green algie while moored at how hill last year...

Jonny

[Guest]

Sadly, I think the Anglers need to brush up on the basics of Eutrophication....

http://www.water-pollution.org.uk/eutrophication.html

Ted Ellis (who lets face it, knew a thing or two about plants) worked out the rate of plant growth was hugely dependant on the depth of water. Once the water gets less than 3ft in depth, the amount of sunlight that reaches the mud is significantly higher than normal. This WILL cause Eutrophication, and then eventually the water will be entirely depleted of oxygen, and nutrients resulting in widespread ecological damage. The fishstocks will die, the plant life will die, it will take decades to recover. Fact.

Which leads me to the conclusion it's a tightrope situation for all concerned! Dredge to maintain the right of navigation, and there is a risk of an Algae bloom. (although water monitoring has been carefully applied to ensure that dredging could be stopped immediately if that seemed probable)

Or

Leave Heigham Sound to silt up, and then there WILL be an Algal bloom.

So for those who are planning such a blockade, please just have a think, read up about Eutrophication and ALL its causes, particularly depth of water.

[Hockham Admiral]

Welcome to the forum, JS and thanks for a most informative first post!

[pks1702]

More scaremongering by a very small selfish minority who don't want the Sound dredged as they want shallow water and b*gger everyone else.

http://www.gofishing.co.uk/Angling-Time ... ae-threat/

I hope all the boats have tolls

I think you have a thing or two to learn from the French chaps................

[Guest DAYTONA-BILL]

Welcome to the forum, JS and thanks for a most informative first post!

And i`d like to second that.

[Guest DAYTONA-BILL]

More scaremongering by a very small selfish minority who don't want the Sound dredged as they want shallow water and b*gger everyone else.

http://www.gofishing.co.uk/Angling-Time ... ae-threat/

I hope all the boats have tolls

I think you have a thing or two to learn from the French chaps................

Thanks for posting that up Perry, it was the article i was talking about. I thought the last comment in the report gave it away, "being dredged for the wrong reasons etc". Just another reason for the BA NOT to carry out dredging that is already 40 odd years behind schedule. Regards to all ................... Neil.

[Guest]

More scaremongering by a very small selfish minority who don't want the Sound dredged as they want shallow water and b*gger everyone else.

Thousands of miles of fishable rivers in the UK, and only a very small proportion is navigable by boats bigger than canoes.

"b*gger everyone else" sums up their incredibly selfish attitude nicely, and it's far from certain that it will cause a bloom anyway....

[pks1702]

I have to declare that I am a keen angler but I am afraid I cannot lend any support to this cause for the reasons outlined.

Funny amongst anglers it appears only the Pike Anglers are against the dredging

[Guest]

I have to declare that I am a keen angler but I am afraid I cannot lend any support to this cause for the reasons outlined.

Funny amongst anglers it appears only the Pike Anglers are against the dredging

The reason being Pike are particularly susceptible to Prymnesium parvum and outbreaks in the past have been catastrophic to the pike population of the Broads. Silver fish can and do repopulate and reach a reasonable size (for anglers) in a relative short time, Pike on the other hand don't. As a keen Pike angler I can understand the concerns and also as a boater on the Broads understand the need to keep the waterways open.

To label all Pike anglers as selfish is disproportionate at best,plus I fail to see as an angler why we would want shallow water? Even deep water anywhere on the whole Broads system is not deep, so that being stated as a reason Pike anglers are against any dredging is way off the mark sadly.

On the whole boat traffic has little effect on catching fish even when boats have traveled through an area it tends not to put fish off that much, so it cant be a wanting to keep boats out of the area either.

As said the "only" reason is because the "possible" threat of an outbreak of Prymnesium parvum. And as far as I know, all that was asked was more research into this before any dredging was done.

Neil.

[Guest]

Sadly, I think the Anglers need to brush up on the basics of Eutrophication....

http://www.water-pollution.org.uk/eutrophication.html

Ted Ellis (who lets face it, knew a thing or two about plants) worked out the rate of plant growth was hugely dependant on the depth of water. Once the water gets less than 3ft in depth, the amount of sunlight that reaches the mud is significantly higher than normal. This WILL cause Eutrophication, and then eventually the water will be entirely depleted of oxygen, and nutrients resulting in widespread ecological damage. The fishstocks will die, the plant life will die, it will take decades to recover. Fact.

Which leads me to the conclusion it's a tightrope situation for all concerned! Dredge to maintain the right of navigation, and there is a risk of an Algae bloom. (although water monitoring has been carefully applied to ensure that dredging could be stopped immediately if that seemed probable)

Or

Leave Heigham Sound to silt up, and then there WILL be an Algal bloom.

So for those who are planning such a blockade, please just have a think, read up about Eutrophication and ALL its causes, particularly depth of water.

Nothing to do with Eutrophication, in the normal sense. its the disturbance of the silt which will release the trapped Prymnesium parvum. The species is of concern because of its ability to produce a toxin which results in fish death.

[Guest]

Entirely to do with Eutrophication if the waterway isn't dredged.

Am suggesting two conclusions of the situation Heigham Sound faces.

One is the potential Prymnesium parvum release as a result of dredging.

The other is Eutrophication, which will happen if the water level drops below 3ft.

Unfortunately waterborn ecologies are suspect to any number of external influences at anytime. Should any landowner around Heigham Sound decide to start intensively farming arable crops for example. This could lead to an increased rate of 'run off' for N, P, K from fertiliser, which as the nutrient levels become higher and higher will trigger... an Algae Bloom.

It really does depend on how far you want to throw the net to encompass threats to this Waterway, you could go so far as to include the Salt Water influx on a abnormal tide, or the risk posed from another breach in the Sea Defences. All of the above pose potential risks to the Aquatic Environment.

Sticking just to water depth, I acknowledge entirely your point of a Prymnesium outbreak. It IS a risk. No doubt about it. However, because of public opinion there is a tremendous amount of monitoring going on to ensure such an outbreak doesn't occur. The dredging would be stopped if it seemed likely that the levels were being increased to a dangerous point.

However. My point is, Eutrophication WILL occur should the water level continue to decrease. People far more intelligent and eloquent than me have proven this. It's a question of responsibility.

If we ignore the situation now, we could have maybe 10, 15 years more fishing and sailing up on Heigham Sound. Before the ecology up there is ruined, the sailing is ruined, and it becomes one big barren mass of stagnent water.

Or, we can try to manage the waterway, keeping in account the needs of all the users, fisherman and sailors alike. That way we have a waterway all can enjoy for as long as possible.

I know which scenario I'd prefer...

[Guest]

I fully agree with what you are saying there, and eutrophication will occour if left. I was refering to why the anglers planned on blocking the sound. That was entirely because of the risk of Prymnesium parvum. We can only hope in the event of an outbreak that dredging would be stopped until the problem could be solved. I don't for one moment suggest and nor do most Pike anglers that nothing should be done and the area just left to silt up as that would be of no benefit to anybody including the wildlife.

[littlesprite]

A lot of research has already taken place, indeed a trial dredge with the building of a island took place and monitoring of water quality.

At the time of previous pp outbreaks there was a local land fill in operation draining into the sound, also the large seagull population attracted by the landfill which is known to be a large contributer of pp both here and in other areas.

It should also be pointed out that testing of the water is looking for nutrient increases as well as pp blooms, the BA won't wait to see a bloom before taking action they will look for the nutrient level and suspend operations if there is any risk.

[pks1702]

+1 Littlesprite

Broads for all!