North West Angling Trust Fisheries Consultative Council

part of the Angling Trust and AT North West Freshwater Forum

10.12.20

Peter Gough, NRW Principal Fisheries Advisor David Mee, NRW Snr Fisheries Advisor,

Ian Davidson, NRW Snr Environmental Assessment Officer, Dr Alan Walker, Cefas Snr Scientific Officer,

Grant Horsburgh, Defra Freshwater & Migratory Fisheries Team, Mark Owen, AT Freshwater Campaigns

Cc NWATFCC, CPWF & PAAS representatives Dear Peter,

Response to NRW correspondence of 30.11.20 & 03.12.20 ref NWATFCC information requests & recommendations on Welsh Stock reporting & Byelaw Impact

We very much appreciate your detailed responses to our communications of the 23.07.20 & 03.11.20.

I am conscious you are also midway in responding to our letter of 02.12.20 concerning the recent publication of the 2019 Salmon stock performance in Wales report. With this in mind I would like to make a full NWATFCC combined response to those three communications once we have received your last response. I expect to complete our final response within the next 10 days.

Please consider four important points in your final reply:

• NRW & EA Rationale for reverting to using a historic 1.1 raising factor in 2019 angler declared under reported salmon rod catches. You refer specifically to correspondence between Simon Toms (EA) and myself of 4^th August as explaining this. As you are now aware this correspondence has been registered as a Formal Complaint by NWATFCC to EA this week. I have provided this correspondence for you and in our view this does not provide a satisfactory explanation for a revision from 1.51 in 2018 to 1.1 in 2019. Our NWATFCC analysis of four major NW Rivers fisheries catch returns demonstrate that there is still significant angler declared catch under-reporting which we estimate to be 1.68 and higher than the 2018 factor applied. This is a major factor in NWATFCC, PAAS & CPWF formally writing to the EA, NRW & Cefas that we are unable to accept or agree with the 2019 published River stock assessments.

May we ask that NRW clarify which Welsh River fisheries do provide reliable rod catch data that is used by NRW to set individual river estimates used for total catch and egg deposition estimates.

• Fisheries engagement in national reviews (rod exploitation rate RER & 3 year stock assessment & decision structure process). Again to re-emphasise, rod fisheries have had no confirmation of the conclusion of the RER findings which we were assured would influence and correct 2018 & 2019 assessments. Nor a timetable and proposed content/scope of the 3 year review to which we have made some very progressive and substantive proposals. We do expect to see and be a part of those formative discussions and certainly not have finished and final proposals presented to us. That has been communicated to the Angling Trust and we look forward to a commitment and further dialogue on this.

Again, this is a factor in NWATFCC, PAAS & CPWF not accepting 2018 & 2019 assessments.

• The Index Dee assessments and estimates. In earlier correspondence with the EA the Dee Index assessment and estimates for determining whole run size, RER proportions by 1SW/MSW components(annual and 5/10 year MAT) has been mentioned as a potential model for incorporation into the 3 year review proposals. The angler log book programme, trapping, tagging and recapture estimates may well be the best angler recapture programme in E & W, of which there are few. But the system presents some concerns and you kindly offered a site visit to discuss these with you. We would welcome this.

These concerns arise from:

• tagged fish being generated from operational trapping that has reduced to approx 50% of the available annual hours (4,200 hours of 8544 annually. This was 5,000 on average in the 1990`s)
  • the trapped proportion of total run falling to below 15% in some years. The Dee report refers to this proportion being 20 – 30 %.of the run.
  • a 5 or 10 year average Dee RER being used on the Wye & Usk when individual year RER can fall by as much as 50% year to year e.g. 2017 to 2018.
  • that the Dee anglers in the log book scheme catch 2/3/4 times the proportion of tagged to untagged salmon in their reported catch to those reported by non log book anglers. You have responded that this does not happen. I would ask you refer to the NRW Index data below that I have summarised for years 2016 -18 that does show there is a 2/3/4 times variation between these angler groups.

• Ranking Rivers by the strength of negative trend in the latest 10 year-time series of egg depositions (Salmon stock performance in Wales 2019 report). I have discussed this with colleagues and statisticians and we are unsure as to how this data has been derived and unconvinced of the conclusions that are being drawn from this. What trend is this and what is  the equation for estimating the trend ? How are the “p” values and eight category rankings derived?. From our analysis of 6 of the best performing Welsh Rivers the published ranking categories do not correspond with our findings. We would welcome a response to these points.

Once again thank you for your patience and assistance in addressing these important discussions.

Best regards Mike Ashwin,

Chair NWATFCC North West Angling Trust Fisheries Consultative Council & on behalf of

CPWF Campaign for Protection of Welsh Fisheries & PAAS Prince Albert Angling Society.

This communication was directed today to the EA`s – NW Fisheries Managers and Technical specialists in the F, B & G teams – Steve Garner, Colette Whiting, Darren Bedworth, David Spiby & Phil Ramsden (Andy Gowan`s replacement. EA Fisheries colleagues,
I am writing to you jointly, because the circumstances warrant this. This is FYI and no response is required. 
NWATFCC has registered 3 Formal Complaints to the EA in the last 18 months (2 this week), all concerning national and local salmon reporting procedures and interpretation of stocks. That level of challenge to stock reporting systems is unheard of. 
Some of these systems may not be your direct responsibility but you will understand and know that incorrect stock estimates have an adverse and significant impact on our major migratory river fisheries (stock status, CL compliance, angler participation, rod effort/catch, Club/Syndicate revenue, tourism income, damage to stock protection & enhancement programmes). 
The Formal Complaints raised through Sharon Kennedy comprise:

1. June 2019 – Failure to review and revise rod exploitation rate estimates used historically in SAP framed, annual egg deposition calculations to CL. This concerns all NW Rivers estimates in the Solway, Lune & national Byelaw process. This is now with the Parliamentary Ombudsman and an assigned case officer.
2. 07.12.20 –  Raised by NWATFCC & LWFA concerning presentation and reporting of River Lune stock assessment and use of Lune Index counter data (in River Lune 2020 NLO & Byelaw Consultation, EA Response to Representations, and to inform wider NW egg deposition estimates in CL Compliance procedures)
3. 08.12.20 – Statements by EA and failure to use NWATFCC 2019 rod catch reports in published national Angler under-reporting catch factors in estimating the NW River estimates to CL.

The attached letters and support documents refer to Complaints 2 & 3 only.The NWATFCC estimates of accumulated error in published and underestimated 2019 river salmon stocks for NW river stocks    require an uplift in the order of between an additional 90 -100% on  current published estimates. This comprises a 43% uplift (e.g. NW Rivers with a 20% RER and correction to 13%) and an additional 58% uplift (from NWATFCC River fisheries returns that demonstrate a 1.68 EA angler declared under reporting factor is required and not the 1.1 factor used from the EA published Angler declared rod catch estimates). 
NWATFCC will consider what action it needs to take following these Complaint processes and after receiving the EA response to our request for a written explanation and reply to the NWATFCC tabled Agenda item at the December – England Fisheries Group meeting.
Finally, NWATFCC have raised concerns that the much-reduced 2019 report – Salmonid and Fisheries Statistics in England & Wales (released two months early this year !) fails to contain essential river and regional breakdown of – Migratory Licence purchases by category,  rod effort & CPUE by river, salmon weight/component analysis, monthly river analysis of salmon and sea trout & C & R catch.  At present we have very little detail to compare 2018 and 2019 River performance.
The good news is that in 2019 (and a lesser extent 2018) after all the dire predictions from the 2016 Storm Desmond impacted juvenile survey results that stocks were in critical decline, we have witnessed strong runs of returning salmon.The Derwent 2019 rod catch doubling its 2018 return and on early analysis of Eden reported fisheries catch the beats below Warwick Bridge have already exceeded the whole river 2018 catch. These returning adults from spawning progeny when voluntary C & R of 90% was being observed.
Thank you for your time and we hope you and families keep well through the turn of the season and next year.It`s been a tough year and we hope our joint efforts are rewarded.
Mike AshwinNWATFCC  North West Angling Trust Fisheries Consultative Council

Peter Gough, NRW Principal Fisheries Advisor David Mee, NRW Snr Fisheries Advisor,

Ian Davidson, NRW Snr Environmental Assessment Officer, Dr Alan Walker, Cefas Snr Scientific Officer,

Grant Horsburgh, Defra Freshwater & Migratory Fisheries Team, Mark Owen, AT Freshwater Campaigns

Cc NWATFCC, CPWF & PAAS representatives Dear Peter,

Corrections, explanations and recommendations to the NRW published Salmon stock performance in Wales 2019 Report

May I thank you for your recent confirmation that the NWATFCC, CPWF & PAAS request to NRW & WFF concerning impact of All Wales Byelaws on river catch will be responded to on 4^th December.

In other correspondence received last week the attached NRW – Version 09/06/20 Report on Salmon stock performance in Wales 2019 was included in distributions following a recent LFG. Having asked four WFF – LFG colleagues and other PAAS & CPWF representatives whether they had received this I received a mixed response. Importantly the Report does not appear to have been part of the WFF November Agenda nor does it appear to have been commented on?

My colleagues and I have read the document fully and wish to express our concerns with key elements of its content and presentation. May I ask that these points are responded to and where necessary corrections made and communicated to persons that have received earlier copies and to all WFF representatives. You may wish to add these to the earlier request dated 03.11.20. We appreciate this may require a later response. Would you would please advise on this.

Points are as follows and include coloured text where they appear in the original 2019 stock Report;

1. Use and reference to Management Target in achieving Management Objective Throughout the Report reference is made to achievement and attainment to Management Target MT (approx 30 – 40% higher than CL egg deposition target) when MT has no specific function in setting Management Objective MO and a River`s Formal Compliance.

The England & Wales Annexe 4 – Salmon Stock Management System clearly states;

The Management Target (MT) for each river is a spawning stock level for managers to aim at, to ensure that the objective of exceeding the CL is met four years out of five in the long run (i.e. 80%  of the time).

It is by definition a goal but emphatically not a requirement for managers.

The NRW 2019 Report Page 2 states;

Natural fluctuations in spawner and egg numbers means that on average, stocks must be some way above the CL in order to meet Management Objective. The average stock level equated to an additional layer of protection and is indicated by the Management Target (MT)

The NRW 2019 Report Page 2 states:

It may be desirable for average stock levels to reach or exceed MT but it is NOT a requirement and factually incorrect to state that average stocks must be above MT to achieve MO (Formal Compliance in 5 years time). There are many historic examples of rivers meeting MO – “Probably Not at Risk” or “Not at Risk” status where very few of their historic 10 years estimates actually met CL and certainly did not achieve an average stock level above MT. The Wye being an example.

2.      Management Responses

The 2019 Report page 4 states;

assessment). Where possible (principally on rod fisheries), voluntary measures to control exploitation should be promoted in the first instance before considering mandatory action.                                                                                                        

In view of the fact that in England the EA & Defra did and does observe the stated E & W guidance and NASCO approved Decision Structure Process, NRW`s promotion of Voluntary    C & R measures for “Probably at Risk” and some “At Risk” is at odds with its actual delivery of national Byelaw Policy. Please explain why NRW continues to promote this voluntary option in the 2019 Report when the All Wales Byelaw Consultation and Inquiry provided no such option?

We would recommend and welcome a statement from NRW that clarifies how mandatory C & R and method restriction measures, including those applied all Welsh “At Risk” and Probably at Risk” rivers in 2019 and 2024 (five years time) will be reviewed and communicated to WFF, LFG`s, rod fisheries and anglers during the period of the 10 year Byelaws. Might we suggest that this makes reference to the decision points and notes contained in Pages 6 & 7 of the Annexe 4 – Salmon Stock Management Plan? These are missing in the 2019 Report. We request that these are circulated with the page 5 Decision tree table so that we have a complete set of Decision papers. Additionally, we ask information is provided that informs fisheries and anglers when and in what circumstances changing river assessments will cause Byelaw Measures to be reviewed on an individual river basis.

3.      Vulnerability of Stock ranking

We welcome NRW`s policy to measure river stock performance on multiple criteria through a ranking system. However we are particularly concerned that the later two of three ranking tests do not provide an accurate measure or indicator of adult spawning performance. We would expect and recommend the performance tests to include;

• Individual rivers actual annual Formal Compliance to CL (5 or 10 year % values)
• A rivers actual average 5 year attainment to CL target (its MAT % ).

Looking at the 2019 Reports second ranking performance test;

It is clear that over the last 10 years most rivers will and are exhibiting a negative trend as a result of the significant change in 1SW/MSW run components. It is also not unusual for Rivers to meet CL and MT consistently yet still exhibit a negative trend. In these scenarios trend performance can present a misleading measure of stock health.

Our own analysis of the last 10 year time series egg deposition trend estimates for the 23 individual Welsh rivers does not agree with your own tables which appear to show all Welsh rivers have a negative trend.

The Wye & Severn would appear to display a positive 10 year trend, whilst the Usk, Mawddach, Conwy and Dee negative trend estimates do not appear to fit with the published Table 1 & 2 trend categories. Please would NRW provide confirmation of how the 10 year time series trend graph was calculated with examples in graph form for the 6 rivers mentioned?

Concerning the third ranking test:

We refer to the points raised in Item 1 and above and request that the % egg shortfall/surplus is measured to Conservation Limit target.

• Page 8, 9 &10 – 23 principal River graphs

We very much welcome NRW`s initiative to present individual river graphs and illustrating these over the long time series history back to 1994.

However the graph illustrations of the 23 Welsh Rivers present a number of interpretation issues for readers that you will be familiar with.

• The charts are in logarithmic form and do not illustrate actual y axis scale egg deposition values in millions.For the unaccustomed reader they are difficult or nigh impossible to interpret, a point made as far back as the 2017 Telford Stock Assessment Workshop and referred to in the Workshop summary report as a matter for future improvement. Talking with colleagues we feel that for most Rivers the scale of annual variability would allow graphs to be presented to actual scale and this would provide a different and much improved assessment of actual egg deposition performance.

• Management Target is illustrated with a much bolder and over emphasised line relative to the formal CL line target. Many readers will assume incorrectly, that the MT target line must be the required formal compliance target. This is not the case and we recommend that in future the CL & MT lines are of equal weight.

Finally, the 2019 Report does not refer to the significance of the two national E & W Reviews that are underway which present an opportunity for NRW & rod fisheries to engage in what is a critically important milestone for salmon fisheries. Those reviews being ;

The Rod exploitation rate review for revising estimates used of whole River run stocks for Rivers without validated counter data.

A three year Stock Assessment Review to improve procedures and methodology for setting targets, assessing and reporting annual stocks, and Decision Structure Process conservation measures.

The 2019 Report does not record that NRW, EA & Cefas arbitrarily reverted to using the historic

1.1 Angler under reporting factor in 2019 River estimates and did so without informing Rod fisheries. Disregarding reliable River fisheries catch estimates which showed that in the NW a factor in excess of the previous 2018 estimate of 1.51 needed to be applied to 2019 estimates.

Additionally NRW, EA & Cefas have published and released the outcome of the national Rod exploitation Rate review which was expected to cause revision to recent year assessments. NWATFCC, PAAS & CPWF are still seeking confirmation of the RER review through earlier correspondence with NRW and EA.

We appreciate this is an unwelcome request at a time of additional workload for many organisations, but believe the matters raised are of importance to improvements we are seeking whilst the national reviews are under consideration.

It is hoped those reviews will engage with and include representation of rod fisheries and angler stakeholder interests.

Best regards Mike Ashwin,

Chair  NWATFCC  North West Angling Trust Fisheries Consultative Council & on behalf of

CPWF Campaign for Protection of Welsh Fisheries & PAAS Prince Albert Angling Society.

Many thanks for comments thus far – Chris, Guy & John. Can I quickly re-emphasis why I will be writing to Peter Gough later today and asking that this letter and information request is tagged to the earlier communication asking for the stock reporting/assessment answers to be responded to.
It is apparent the June – NRW – Salmon Stock Performance in Wales 2019 Report has not been distributed widely and appears to have not been included in the last WFF Agenda, which I find quite amazing.
There are incorrect statements that require explanation and correction and we do need to know who is the author of this report.
The central thrust of the Report is to reflect Welsh River performance against the higher egg deposition “Management Target” and not the Formal Compliance – “Conservation Limit”.  As a rule the MT is 30 – 40% higher than the CL. In our view this is contentious and presents an incorrect assessment of Welsh River health.
But also fundamental elements of Stock Assessment procedures and methodology are subject to two national review processes to which we have submitted detailed proposals and have been excluded from representation. 
Can or should they do this ? – they used the MT performance trend framework in the Byelaw Consultation and at the Welsh Inquiry and produced and enforced mandatory C & R and method restrictions outwith the Decision Structure process. 
It may be helpful to grasp some of the key proposals NWATFCC, PAAS & CPWF presented to NASCO as part of drafting the NASCO 2019 -2024 Implementation Plan, which led into formation of the 3 year stock Assessment review ; 

• Revision of CL & MT to a single CL for Rivers
• Removal of the use of 10 year historic and 5 year forward – Linear Regression trend and Bayesian Analysis to project 5 year forward stock status – the probability of meeting Management Objective (exceeding CL in 4 out 5 years on average in the long term).          Replacing this with a simple 5 year rolling average River attainment to CL – the Scottish model.
• replacing the current Decision Structure Process with a much simpler C & R measures set in 3 or 4 banded categories with each River reporting its actual 5 year % attainment to CL.
• A new and fuller national fisheries reporting document that shows all the 6-7 variables applied by the EA & NRW to each River to produce the final annual stock estimate a draft of this has been developed and submitted)

Hope that helps in understanding the background to this process and how rod fisheries as principal stakeholders should be consulted and engaged in these decisions. 
Mike AshwinNWATFCC  North West Angling Trust Fisheries Consultative Council

It has taken me some time to publish this touching letter from John Eardley, an angler who has worked so hard with NRW and the EA before that, as well as with fellow angles.

To say that John’s resignation from the North Wales River Trust, as well as from his “second home” in Wales, is a tragedy: he will be much missed. Thanks for all your hard work John. I have no words to adequately describe my feeling at loosing John from the Welsh campaigners, but have no doubt that we have more to hear from him. Don’t let the *.* grind you down John!

Dear Alan and fellow Operations Group Colleagues

It is with great sadness and regret that I write to inform you that I can no longer continue in my role as secretary of the North Wales Rivers Trust. I feel that everyone needs to know the full reasons behind my decision and hopefully my letter will bring some understanding of what has led to that decision. I will continue in my post until you are able to find a replacement and would like to attend the next meeting to say my goodbyes formally although Covid 19 may intervene on that front.

It is nigh on 60 years when, armed with a hand me down tank aerial rod, I first cast a worm (unsuccessfully!) into the Mawddach and so began a love affair that I thought would last for ever; sadly that has proved not to be the case. This is my 40^th year of having a permanent base at Y Vanner on the banks of the Mawddach but sadly it will also be my last having made the decision to sell our caravan and replace it with a tourer which will enable me to explore areas of North West and North East England where I have access to a number of rivers and a free choice as to which angling methods I choose to use. Sadly the method restrictions within the All Wales Bylaws mean that the majority of the Upper Mawddach and Wnion are now extremely difficult to fish by legal means and, given the difficulty of returning fish ethically and safely, those magical places, never even seen by those responsible for the current debacle, will now be consigned to my memories. The final nail in the coffin is the fact that I have lost every single fish that I have hooked this year on single hooked spinners, an all too common experience for the majority of anglers. For NRW to suggest that the bylaws will make little difference to anglers is an endorsement of just how out of touch with the angling community the organisation has become. It is more than a little ironic that a place that was once such an exciting escape from the pressures of a busy working life has, in retirement, become a place of hopelessness and despair.

When I first represented Prince Albert Angling Society at the Gwynedd LFG it was yourself and Julian Bray who were responsible for fisheries in North Wales. There was a feeling that our voices were heard and in the case of the Mawddach we felt that we were making progress. A genuine spirit of partnership and cooperation, for example with broodstock collection and the stocking out of juveniles, strengthened the working relationship between Environment Agency Wales and PAAS to the benefit of all concerned. Sadly that is the very antithesis of what has happened since the creation of the single body that is NRW. I was also inspired by the work that Chris White and Roger Thomas were undertaking within both the Conwy Valley Fisheries and Conservation Association and the Clwyd and Conwy Rivers Trust and that gave me ideas of just what might be achieved on the Mawddach. I would also like to thank Robin Parry for not only being the calm “voice of reason” as chair of the Gwynedd LFG but in particular for his work in primary schools with the “Finding Torgoch” project. Education is key to our future and in order to do that we have to listen and learn from what others have to say. Kat Marshall has also been a constant source of support.

I would particularly like to thank Rich White for his inspiration, enthusiasm and guidance in initial habitat improvement works within the Mawddach catchment. During an impromptu conversation at a Dee Fisheries Association meeting I expressed envy at the work that had been carried out by the Dee Trust on the Rhug Estate and also works that I was aware of that had been undertaken by the then Clwyd and Conwy Rivers Trust. Rich told me that Afonydd Cymru could carry out works on rivers that were not part of a trust. Following a full day visit to the Mawddach & Wnion we hatched a plan to use volunteer labour from anglers to survey some of the feeder streams using WFD criteria and that these would then inform future sites for habitat improvement works. Volunteers were given basic training and the data gathered was presented in the form of annotated maps, photographs and tables accompanied by a brief written description. I strongly believed that this educational process of visiting parts of the catchment that so many anglers were unfamiliar with would change the way in which anglers view both the river and also the fish that they catch lower down the system. Our efforts received a very positive reception in the Bangor Office and a number of gravel traps were constructed in the Afon Wen. To say that we were delighted when 6 redds were observed on the traps later that year is an understatement. I am afraid that when our knowledge of our own catchment was described by NRW’s Principal Fisheries Advisor at the Bylaws Inquiry as no more than “knowing where the stiles and footpaths are, how to get to the river…” it caused irreparable damage and highlighted the lengths that NRW will stoop to in order to get their own way. That the Inspector believed it speaks volumes about the whole sorry saga.

If it could be demonstrated that the Bylaws were likely to result in any significant improvement in fish stocks and were accompanied by annual reviews they might have been slightly easier to accept. However NRW’s figures show that they will make a negligible difference to the Mawddach system when a recent 5 year average catch of more than 50 salmon and an exploitation rate of 10% would indicate a run size of around 500 salmon p.a. of which 50 are caught on rod and line. However given a return rate in excess of 80% the entire loss due to angling is no more than 10 salmon. The recent NRW email footer “Even relatively small numbers of fish are crucial to recover stocks in as short a time as possible. Every spawning fish matters” is at odds with discussions we have had at the Trust about how, given good habitat and careful management of predation even a relatively small number of salmon can quickly repopulate a spawning stream. In addition NRW’s stock assessments do not reflect what we actually observe in the Mawddach & Wnion and that is also a constant source of frustration. I can only wonder what magic algorithm will be conjured up to account for the large number of fish hooked but no longer landed.

I find it difficult to see how our fisheries can recover from the impacts of what has been foisted upon us. Willing volunteers have left the Mawddach and Wnion whilst those who remain have been well and truly alienated. My own enthusiasm and optimism are now at rock bottom and I suspect that I am not alone when I see just how sparse the current circulation list is for the Gwynedd and Dee LFG’s. Time is not on my side and I am unwilling to wait for the outcome of an interim review of the Bylaws in 5 years’ time and in any case it is difficult to envisage any significant change when the extraordinary lengths that NRW went to in order to secure a legislative solution are taken into account.

I have the greatest respect for everyone at the Trust and wish all of you the very best for the future. I cannot spend my time reflecting on what might have been and so with a heavy heart it is time for me to move on.

Yours sincerely

John Eardley

Ein cyf/Our ref: CX20-145 Your Ref:

Ty Cambria / Cambria House

29 Heol Casnewydd / 29 Newport Road Caerdydd / Cardiff

CF24 0TP / CF24 0TP

Ebost/Email: Chiefexecutivesoffice@cyfoethnaturiolcymru.gov.uk Chiefexecutivesoffice@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk

John Eardley

By e-mail: johneardley@btinternet.com

Ffôn/Phone: 0300 065 4453

29 July 2020

Dear Mr Eardley,

I hope that you and your family are keeping safe and well during these difficult times. Thank you for your letter and observations, we note your continued concerns.

I do not underestimate the changes that are required following the decision taken by the Minister to confirm the fishing byelaws. However, as you know, we are clear that such controls are warranted. For maximum impact, these changes to angling need to work alongside wider measures and action across Wales and this is underway.

I continue to emphasise the importance of working proactively with a range of partners. Despite the challenges involved in changing practices we must work collaboratively if our goals are to be met.

As stated in our ‘Plan of Action’ there is a range of initiatives underway. We are also committed to annual assessments of stocks and a mid-term review of the new byelaws in 2024.

I look forward to working with all our partners to tackle the challenges and seize the opportunities associated with improving and sustaining resilient environments for our iconic fish populations for many years to come.

Best wishes,

Clare Pillman

Prif Weithredwr, Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru Chief Executive, Natural Resources Wale

“Ty Newydd”4, Little Moss Lane Scholar Green Stoke-on-Trent ST7 3BL

13^th July 2020

By email to: Clare.Pillman@cyfoethnaturiolcymru.gov.uk

All Wales Byelaws – the impact on angling

Dear Clare,

With the lifting of travel restrictions in Wales on 6^th July and the prospect of favourable river conditions I prepared myself for my first trip of the season. Of course much of my fishing tackle was no longer legal in Wales and I was faced with the prospect of changing all of the hooks on my lures. Research revealed that hardly any companies state the gape size of their hooks and with such variations in the market place it was something of a lottery to ensure the hooks I purchased were legal. Furthermore the cost of suitable hooks varied between 35p and £1.25 each. Nevertheless I made the necessary changes to a few of my lures

although a huge number of hooks still need to be purchased if the rest of my lures are to be legal in Wales.

I ventured to the Afon Dyfi last Wednesday to find a river in perfect condition for spinning and it was then that the harsh reality of the current situation really hit home when, without exception, I failed to land any of the numerous sea trout that I hooked. It is true that an angler will always lose some of the fish that they hook but when “some” becomes “all” angling becomes something of a pointless exercise. Of course I should not be surprised by the outcome given that no parent would purchase a tricycle for their child, remove two of the wheels and then be puzzled why the child kept falling off.

During the day I spoke to 2 other groups of anglers. The first was a father fishing with his 3 sons. They had fared slightly better than me in that they had at least managed to land one of the fish that they had hooked during the day. The second father and son team had landed 6 sea trout between them, the reason for their success being immediately obvious for they had chosen to disregard the byelaws and were both using treble hooks on their spinners. I wonder which of the 4 youngsters will be keenest to head back to the river.

When the river cleared and I changed to fly fishing I did at least manage to hook and land a fish successfully. However you must realise that not every angler is able to fly fish and for those people life is going to be very difficult indeed, particularly when allied to the restrictions applied to worm fishing.

It is very clear to me that yet another angling technique has been rendered all but ineffective in Wales. To achieve any degree of success in the future the options would appear to be either be prepared to be criminalised for disregarding the byelaws or else fish elsewhere in the UK where a more reasonable approach has been taken to method restrictions. To endure the current restrictions for 10 years is a bleak prospect, particularly when it is recognised that anglers are not the cause of the problem. However I am fully aware of what the intransigent response is likely to be in response to any request for an early review of the byelaws.

There is also a serious implication for the already deeply flawed stock assessments if large numbers of fish that would previouslyhave been landed are now lost and hence fail to be recorded on catch returns. Depressed catches will no doubt be attributed to a lack of fish in the river rather than the impact of method restrictions and result in yet further restrictions on anglers. I note that in the Plan of Action the Provisional Sea Trout Stock Assessment for the Dyfi in 2023 is PaR (Probably at Risk). The numbers of fish I witnessed on Wednesday would indicate that nothing could be further from the truth but then again senior fisheries staff would have to actually visit the river in order to know that.

I realise that my letter is unlikely to elicit any positive response but it would be remiss of me not make you fully aware of the farcical situation that legitimate anglers are now having to endure in Wales. The future is indeed grim and that has nothing at all to do with any shortage of fish in most of the rivers that I am familiar with.

Kind regards

John (Eardley)

National Access Forum

05/11/19

This paper is intended to provide clarity on the Welsh Government’s preferred direction of travel for access to inland waters for recreation purposes. It provides some recent background and context but is not intended to re-produce the detailed history which has been comprehensively documented.

Background

Welsh Government is considering the introduction of legislation to provide for wider access to the countryside for the purposes of recreation.

The proposal to extend Part 1 of CRoW Act access land provisions to rivers and other inland waters (Proposal 14) was contained in the 2017 Sustainable Management of Natural Resources (SMNR) consultation and has created polarised views. https://gov.wales/taking-forward-wales-sustainable-management-natural-resources. 

Other Access proposals potentially with a direct or indirect impact in this area are:

• Proposal 11 (removing certain CRoW Schedule 2 restrictions)
• Proposal 16 (responsible recreation applying to on water as well as on land)
• Other proposals to make changes to Rights of Way legislation may impact on access across land to inland waterways

A number of responses were received in favour of legislating for access to water for non-motorised activities, including canoeing and swimming.  Many water sports users argue strongly that they already have a historic legal right of navigation on rivers, however, many anglers and other fishery interests refute these rights of navigation; purporting open access to inland waters would create inequality because of fishing licence fees, land ownership and riparian rights, as well as suggesting detrimental environmental impacts to spawning and subsequent fish stocks.

There are currently no general statutory public rights of recreational access in or on inland waters in Wales and very little common law.  Fishing and water sports both deliver significant tourism, socio-economic, health and wellbeing benefits for Wales.  Introducing public rights of access to rivers and other inland waters would provide greater clarity to all users; however, it would have a range of impacts as well as attracting opposition from many sections of the angling community, land managers and land / riparian owners.

Since 2009, the Welsh Government has advocated voluntary access arrangements (VAAs) and supported the use of these and other opportunities on inland waters through the Splash funding scheme (2008-2014). However, there continues to be friction between different stakeholder groups, with a limited number of VAAs currently in place. 

Current Position and wider policy intent

The Deputy Minister, in her Written Statement of April 2019, which framed the Welsh Government approach to the SMNR Access proposals, stated that:

• ‘Our Natural Resources Policy illustrates that nature-based solutions can support physical and mental health.  That is why we are committed, as a Government, to increasing both access to and enjoyment of our countryside for people – to take advantage of the many health and wellbeing benefits that getting outside can bring.
• An accessible countryside supports our efforts to boost Wales as a tourism destination and an attraction for walkers, cyclists and thrill-seekers.’

The Deputy Minister has announced the creation of an Access Reform Advisory Group (ARAG) to look in detail at a number of the Access proposals within SMNR. Others will be progressed by officials with some more limited scrutiny by ARAG.

The need to treat Proposal 14 separately to the main Access Reform processes was also set out in her Written Statement: “I will also be asking the National Access Forum to give particular priority in 2019 to laying the ground work for the greater dialogue on inland waters issues that is needed.  I strongly encourage stakeholders to find a practical joint solution.  I have not ruled out future legislation on access, particularly should I not be satisfied of reasonable progression within 18 months.”  

Policy Intent for Access to Water

It is clear that the Deputy Minister wishes to see concerted, collaborative action taken by stakeholders to increase recreational access to inland waters, including the following outcomes:

• Increased and more frequent participation, across a range of recreation types
• More inland waters accessible, more of the time

In working towards these outcomes constructive engagement should be facilitated.

The timescale for assessment of action against ministerial aspiration is determined by the remit of ARAG, with clear, identifiable evidence of progress towards Welsh Government’s aims by March 2021. NAFW will report the outcomes of its sub-group discussions, and associated conclusions and recommendations.

To allow for a climate of open debate, legislative proposals will not be introduced within this period.

Principles of Engagement

Discussions should be led by and driven by stakeholders. However, these discussions may need to be initially facilitated by Welsh Government and NRW as its statutory advisers on access matters.

A sub-group of the National Access Forum should be created comprising a balanced representation of different interests including anglers, canoeists, landowners and public bodies.

This group will be tasked with assessing different options to increase access, while respecting differing views and interests, demonstrating evidence of progress and reporting back to the NAFW regularly.

An initial facilitated meeting will be chaired by WG and NRW to ensure formation, remit and chairing of the sub-group is agreed at the first meeting. A document agreeing this will be produced after the facilitated meeting and agreed by members at the first subsequent meeting of the sub-group.

The areas for discussions and possible options should be agreed at the first facilitated meeting.

These options should then be discussed further and tested against criteria used by the wider Access Reform Programme, namely:

1. Extent of access
   1. Quality of access
   1. Permanency
   1. Clarity and Certainty
   1. Cost
   1. Monitoring and Enforcement
   1. Equity of Access
   1. Greater efficiency and transparency

Options may focus on extending the coverage of waters covered by VAAs via different means, and legislating for limited access such as named rivers, seasonal access, access based on river level, or other ways of targeting access provision to have most benefit.

The sub-group could also focus on actions and initiatives likely to promote greater co-operation and consensus between different user groups, such as those focussed on monitoring or improving the health of rivers.

For this process the sub-group is not being asked to consider:

• A ‘do nothing’ option
• Legislation for a general statutory rights of recreational access