Thought I would give a heads up to everyone and anyone that there is sounds coming out of NE, from the very top, that they are going to be targeting the removal of carp and bream from all protected sites.
They have started the bio manipulation stuff, great hoveton broad being the biggest case however it seems as if it's going to be a nationwide focus for them in the coming years.
As an angling community we need to come together and fight it, I'd implore fishery owners to seek advice and get your ducks lined up for evidence your stock isn't causing destruction to wildlife, etc.
I don't have too much info on it but the AT have already engaged in talks with Tony Jupiter the chair of NE and it seems as though he isn't budging.
They have started the bio manipulation stuff, great hoveton broad being the biggest case however it seems as if it's going to be a nationwide focus for them in the coming years.
As an angling community we need to come together and fight it, I'd implore fishery owners to seek advice and get your ducks lined up for evidence your stock isn't causing destruction to wildlife, etc.
I don't have too much info on it but the AT have already engaged in talks with Tony Jupiter the chair of NE and it seems as though he isn't budging.
In reply to Post #1
Has this been published anywhere buddy?
Has this been published anywhere buddy?
In reply to Post #1
Don't think I'll lose any sleep over this. Carp are an introduced invasive species which do impact on indigenous species and the more of them there are the bigger the impact.
Seems sensible to remove them from protected sites including SSSI's to protect our rare and endangered creatures.
Nobody is talking about eradicating all carp. We can work together with all stakeholders in the natural environment or they will roll over us, quite rightly. There are more than carp out there, and a lot of good people doing a lot more than anglers to fight the environmental battles.
Anglers, and carp anglers in particular seem to have a narrow and shortsighted attitude that is selfish to the nth degree.
Don't think I'll lose any sleep over this. Carp are an introduced invasive species which do impact on indigenous species and the more of them there are the bigger the impact.
Seems sensible to remove them from protected sites including SSSI's to protect our rare and endangered creatures.
Nobody is talking about eradicating all carp. We can work together with all stakeholders in the natural environment or they will roll over us, quite rightly. There are more than carp out there, and a lot of good people doing a lot more than anglers to fight the environmental battles.
Anglers, and carp anglers in particular seem to have a narrow and shortsighted attitude that is selfish to the nth degree.
In reply to Post #1
As much as this is sad as I know some fantastic fisheries at SSSI sites locally to me this is the right move (where the qualifying feature of a SSSI may impacted). Biodiversity and intact ecosystems are disappearing at a rapid rate. What is scary is that most protected sited including SSSI are also in poor or unfavourable condition across the UK.
I will give you an example: I know four ponds close to me, where the qualifying feature are dragonfly assemblages or species, that are no longer present at the site (I did the surveys) due to habitat degradation resulting from unfavourable management, and clubs increasing stocks of carp/silver Subsequently, they no longer qualify under the criteria for designation as SSSI. In theory natural England could remove the protection or are within their right to reverse this trend or prosecute if this is deliberate.
It was never right for these waters to be developed into fisheries and quite how it happened is anyone guess.
I think we have to respect, that we have to find space for nature and that not all waters should be carp fisheries. Many clubs could do with advisors in this area. I would love to help my local clubs but they are very defensive in this area.
Hard, but the right call. The key is good consultation and not taking a blanket approach. Some fisheries should still be able to carry on within SSSI (where the qualifying feature is not impacted), and it's key Natural England recognise this. The angling community could be a huge force, for reducing management cost and protecting sites with the correct guidance. The key point being the right sites.
*disclaimer I'm an angler and work as professional ecologist
As much as this is sad as I know some fantastic fisheries at SSSI sites locally to me this is the right move (where the qualifying feature of a SSSI may impacted). Biodiversity and intact ecosystems are disappearing at a rapid rate. What is scary is that most protected sited including SSSI are also in poor or unfavourable condition across the UK.
I will give you an example: I know four ponds close to me, where the qualifying feature are dragonfly assemblages or species, that are no longer present at the site (I did the surveys) due to habitat degradation resulting from unfavourable management, and clubs increasing stocks of carp/silver Subsequently, they no longer qualify under the criteria for designation as SSSI. In theory natural England could remove the protection or are within their right to reverse this trend or prosecute if this is deliberate.
It was never right for these waters to be developed into fisheries and quite how it happened is anyone guess.
I think we have to respect, that we have to find space for nature and that not all waters should be carp fisheries. Many clubs could do with advisors in this area. I would love to help my local clubs but they are very defensive in this area.
Hard, but the right call. The key is good consultation and not taking a blanket approach. Some fisheries should still be able to carry on within SSSI (where the qualifying feature is not impacted), and it's key Natural England recognise this. The angling community could be a huge force, for reducing management cost and protecting sites with the correct guidance. The key point being the right sites.
*disclaimer I'm an angler and work as professional ecologist
In reply to Post #1
Good
Good
In reply to Post #4
The key is good consultation and not taking a blanket approach. Some fisheries should still be able to carry on within SSSI (where the qualifying feature is not impacted), and it's key Natural England recognise this.
As far as the AT have got with conversations, the sensible approach isn't on the cards as of yet. It is a blanket approach from NE. They may change their minds as it is seemingly early days so far.
This was bought up as an issue in an angling consultative meeting locally at the weekend. It's early days but it could see a great number of fisheries destroyed.
Totally understandable about SSSI and conditions, however they don't seem to protect the bird species listed as the notable species from otters do they
The key is good consultation and not taking a blanket approach. Some fisheries should still be able to carry on within SSSI (where the qualifying feature is not impacted), and it's key Natural England recognise this.
As far as the AT have got with conversations, the sensible approach isn't on the cards as of yet. It is a blanket approach from NE. They may change their minds as it is seemingly early days so far.
This was bought up as an issue in an angling consultative meeting locally at the weekend. It's early days but it could see a great number of fisheries destroyed.
Totally understandable about SSSI and conditions, however they don't seem to protect the bird species listed as the notable species from otters do they
In reply to Post #4
Agree
For years around me there were a few carp waters, now I cannot think of a water without them in, in one shape of form!
Because it's under that water and we cannot see it, nobody will appreciate the impact and it does not matter
Saying that though, in the grand scheme of things crop protection products have a MASSIVE amount to answer for
Agree
For years around me there were a few carp waters, now I cannot think of a water without them in, in one shape of form!
Because it's under that water and we cannot see it, nobody will appreciate the impact and it does not matter
Saying that though, in the grand scheme of things crop protection products have a MASSIVE amount to answer for
In reply to Post #1
When you say all sites does that include rivers and canals? massive undertaking that would be.
When you say all sites does that include rivers and canals? massive undertaking that would be.
In reply to Post #1
I had a feeling this was coming. I was in discussion with the head of ecology regarding some RSPB waters and this was muted a couple of years ago.
I had a feeling this was coming. I was in discussion with the head of ecology regarding some RSPB waters and this was muted a couple of years ago.
In reply to Post #9
Its been on the cards for a long time and they will push. It was a big EU wide project from what i understand and now we are "out" things will either speed up or drop off the radar.
Its been on the cards for a long time and they will push. It was a big EU wide project from what i understand and now we are "out" things will either speed up or drop off the radar.
In reply to Post #8
As far as has been said it is defined as protected sites. Like I said it's early stages of the overall plan but it's started already. Hatchet pond, hoveton broad, etc.
As far as has been said it is defined as protected sites. Like I said it's early stages of the overall plan but it's started already. Hatchet pond, hoveton broad, etc.
In reply to Post #1
Hi Wayne
"targeting the removal of carp and bream from all protected sites."
If you look at the first statements from the "powers that be" on this subject in New Zealand, Australia and Spain: protected sites, protection of native species and the protection of native bio diversity are all reasons that were initially given.
Initially it sounds reasonable and fine
Spain has gone on through the process, slowly ramping how many, and locations of proposed culls up every year culminating in the 2016 law that stated all caught carp must be killed and not returned subject to fines that caused all the protests. They are now ramping up again trying to get a country wide cull.
New Zealand went through exactly the same process unfortunately with very little protest or opposition and was declared a completely carp free nation (I think) in 2019
Australia also started small, ramping up and culminating in the possible release 0f khv in 2019 to cause a total countrywide cull, which was thankfully stopped. This apparently back on the table and being discussed by those that be.
I belive any proposal of culling carp in the UK is just an opening fluffy salvo in a long thought out campaign aimed at total eradication
After all they've got "successful" and proven strategies to follow
Just my thoughts
Best
Jon
Hi Wayne
"targeting the removal of carp and bream from all protected sites."
If you look at the first statements from the "powers that be" on this subject in New Zealand, Australia and Spain: protected sites, protection of native species and the protection of native bio diversity are all reasons that were initially given.
Initially it sounds reasonable and fine
Spain has gone on through the process, slowly ramping how many, and locations of proposed culls up every year culminating in the 2016 law that stated all caught carp must be killed and not returned subject to fines that caused all the protests. They are now ramping up again trying to get a country wide cull.
New Zealand went through exactly the same process unfortunately with very little protest or opposition and was declared a completely carp free nation (I think) in 2019
Australia also started small, ramping up and culminating in the possible release 0f khv in 2019 to cause a total countrywide cull, which was thankfully stopped. This apparently back on the table and being discussed by those that be.
I belive any proposal of culling carp in the UK is just an opening fluffy salvo in a long thought out campaign aimed at total eradication
After all they've got "successful" and proven strategies to follow
Just my thoughts
Best
Jon
In reply to Post #11
This will likely be SSSI and NNR sites. Many SSSI also make up SACs and SPAs. These types of designation are all governed by Natural England.
This will likely be SSSI and NNR sites. Many SSSI also make up SACs and SPAs. These types of designation are all governed by Natural England.
In reply to Post #12
It will never go beyond the types of site I highlighted below. Natural England are grossly underfunded as it is, I dont see the government changing that any time soon.
It will never go beyond the types of site I highlighted below. Natural England are grossly underfunded as it is, I dont see the government changing that any time soon.
In reply to Post #14
Yes of course it won't as anything else is outside of NE jurisdiction. Plenty of SSSIs do get designated regardless of landowner agreement though, or at least they used to do it like that.
Yes of course it won't as anything else is outside of NE jurisdiction. Plenty of SSSIs do get designated regardless of landowner agreement though, or at least they used to do it like that.
In reply to Post #2
Yes Mate.
Angling Trust, groups and anglers alike were all against the fish removal from Hoveton Great Broad and 'fencing' it off from the river. It is one of the spawning grounds for bream on the Norfolk Broads.
Yes Mate.
Angling Trust, groups and anglers alike were all against the fish removal from Hoveton Great Broad and 'fencing' it off from the river. It is one of the spawning grounds for bream on the Norfolk Broads.
Reading ALL pages