All,

I have just received the NRW Board paper on FEB’s, don’t hold your breath on any meaningful action on FEB’s!  There is no acknowledgement that goosanders were not a native British bird and were not recorded on Welsh rivers until the 1970’s.  Whilst goosander did overwinter on the East Coast of Scotland they are now present on all UK rivers as overwintered birds stayed on Scottish rivers and started to breed.  Looking at the numbers in the report with 1300 pairs of overwinter birds (3 months?) assuming they eat 400gm of fish per day then in 3 months between them they would potentially consume circa 1 Tonne of fish much of which in Wales will be made up of salmonids.  Feel free to circulate to your members.

Chris

27th September 2019

Clare Pillman

Chief Executive, Natural Resources Wales Ty Cambria

29 Newport Road Cardiff

CF24 0TP

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

Dear Ms Pillman,

Having been one of the recipients of our letter to the NRW Board dated 16th September 2019, as well as being copied in to both today’s letter to the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs and recent correspondence from the Minister to CPWF1, you will be fully aware of the frustration and anger expressed by Angling Stakeholders from both the Dee and Gwynedd Local LFGs2 and which was so apparent at our meeting in Corwen on 7th September.

Whilst we appreciate that you will be taking the time and trouble to address a joint meeting of the Dee and Gwynedd Local LFGs on the 4th December, that is far too late in the day to effect meaningful change and on that basis there is a very real risk that a significant number of angling representatives will see little point in bothering to attend.

In addition to the information contained in both our letter to the NRW Board and today’s correspondence to the Minister, we would wish to draw your attention to the following serious concerns:

1. At the NRW Board Meeting held at Canolfan Cae Cymro, Clawdd Newydd on 9th July 2015 the Chair, Prof Peter Matthews, closed discussion on “management options to address the decline in stocks of salmon and some sea trout in wales” by stating that he hoped their aims “could be achieved without resorting to statutory legislation”. Despite that there has never been any attempt whatsoever to work with us in order to develop a collective and resilient voluntary solution.
2. NASCO3 International (North Atlantic) Conservation Policy and common Wales & England National Policy has not been followed leading to very different outcomes on either side of the border despite having legally binding common policy and sharing the same shared stock assessment methodology.
3. Anglers in Wales now face the harshest conservation measures in the British Isles with the prospect of Byelaws lasting for a 10 year period whilst our counterparts in England have been offered the opportunity of a Voluntary Solution as a result of the Environment Agency’s correct application of NASCO Policy. In both Scotland and Ireland annual reviews provide a much more flexible and reasonable approach which, unlike Wales, do not extinguish all hope.

1 Campaign for the Protection of Welsh Fisheries

2 Local Fisheries Groups

3 North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation

• The legitimate concerns that have been raised by those of us with great knowledge and experience of not only our own waters but also the attitude and behaviour of our members have been dismissed. These include:
  • Many anglers choose to cease fishing when Mandatory C&R4 is introduced
  • The Byelaws cannot be effectively policed. Despite Board Paper NRW B B 40.15 identifying a “Potential need to re-direct or increase fisheries enforcement resources to enforce any new regulation” the 16.25 FTE5 Enforcement Officers have been reorganised into 10 teams.
  • There is a very real threat to the existence of angling clubs brought about by NRW’s Approach. Those most at risk here are the smaller community based clubs who cannot afford to rent waters as their membership declines
  • There is a serious risk to recruit volunteers to participate in habitat improvement work through the Rivers Trusts
• What are regarded by Senior Fisheries staff as evidence of having “listened to anglers” and made concessions, namely allowing the use of a single worm for sea trout and the use of a shrimp after 1st September, are in fact clumsy and ill-conceived attempts to ensure that the byelaws are implemented. The following correspondence from Heidi Stone , EA6 National Salmon Programme Manager, takes a very different line:

“The fishing restriction byelaw was withdrawn. We took a very close look at all of the responses we received back and I made the call that, although the intention was sound, the delivery was flawed. To prohibit flying Cs and other methods was impossible to set out legally. The intention to fish with care and empathy cannot be set out in a byelaw and, we have made the decision to proceed with improving angler handling, equipment, methods and (I hope) the ultimate safe release of salmon through codes of practice”.

• NRW has chosen to adopt a confrontational approach which is entirely counterproductive.
• NRW chose to instruct Counsel to act in a way which caused untold damage to any future working relationship with angling stakeholders. The following quote from Mark Lloyd, former Chief Executive of the Angling Trust & Fish Legal and a key supporter of a voluntary solution makes that very clear:

“The barrister employed by NRW has been consistently aggressive and patronising to witnesses, the majority of whom represent community angling groups and all of whom have the best interests of fish and fishing in the forefront of their minds. We have been treated like criminals and belittled by the barrister. This has caused many of us significant distress.”

• Those of us who have worked in partnership with both NRW in so many ways including collecting broodstock, planting out fry and parr, spraying invasive weeds, surveying feeder streams etc. feel that our efforts count for nothing. That threatens future cooperation.
• Dr Guy Mawle, much quoted at the Inquiry by NRW’s Principal Fisheries Advisor as an experienced EA Fisheries Officer, hardly makes a convincing case for statutory legislation “The byelaws are therefore unlikely to achieve very much on their own to protect and improve the stock”.
• When there has been constant rebuttal of our knowledge and evidence throughout the past 4 years it is difficult for many of us to see why it should suddenly be such a vital component of a “Salmon and Sea Trout Plan of Action”

We recognise that you have inherited a very difficult situation that has not been of your making. However we cannot move forward until our concerns have been addressed. Those represented by this letter have been at the forefront of salmon conservation within their own organisations and without their participation a worthwhile “Salmon and Sea Trout Plan of Action” is less likely to become a reality.

4 Catch & Release

5 Full-time equivalent

6 Environment Agency

For you to support a deferral of the byelaws whilst a voluntary solution, fully compliant with NASCO policy, is implemented for a 12 month period would send a very clear message to angling stakeholders and help unlock the current impasse.

There is nothing to lose and everything to gain and we look forward to your response.

We would of course welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you in a face to face meeting in the near future.

Yours sincerely

John Eardley – Strategy Officer, Campaign for the Protection of Welsh Fisheries

Dr Robin Parry – Chair, Gwynedd Local Fisheries Advisory Group

Mervyn Williams – Chair, Dee Local Fisheries Advisory Group

On behalf of:

Bangor on Dee Salmon Angling Association

Campaign for the Protection of Welsh Fisheries

Capenhurst Angling Club

Chirk Syndicate

Clwyd Federation of Angling Clubs

Corwen and District Angling Club

Dee Fisheries Association

Dolgellau Angling Association

Dolwyddelan Angling Association

Llanbrynmair Angling Association

Llangollen Maelor Angling

Llyn Guides

New Dovey Fishery Association (1929) Ltd

Ogwen Valley Angling Association

Penrhyn Fishing Club

Prince Albert Angling Society

Rhagatt Estate

Rhyl & St. Asaph Angling Association

Rossett and Gresford Fly Fishers

Seiont Gwyrfai & Llyfni Fishing Society

Vale of Clwyd Angling Club

Wirral Game Fishing Club

Lesley Griffiths AC/AM

Gweinidog yr Amgylchedd, Ynni a Materion Gwledig Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs

Ein cyf/Our ref LG/06787/19

Llywod raeth Cymru Welsh Government

Chris White Conservation Officer

Campaign for the Protection of Welsh Fisheries

chriswhite.cohite@gmail.com

      C/vVJ
1( September 2019

Thank you for your further letter of 23 August, regarding my response to your appeal letter in light of my decision to confirm the Wales Rod and line (Salmon and Sea Trout) Byelaws.

As part of the local inquiry I provided all parties with the opportunity to present evidence to an independent inspector in accordance with clearly outlined regulations. To ensure there was no bias, I declined all invitations to meet and hear independent representations from anyone prior to or after the inquiry.

Having reflected carefully on all the evidence and arguments put forward, the Planning Inspector considered the proposed Byelaws to be a measured response to· decliningfish stocks in Wales. Accordingly, he found them to be necessary, proportionate and reasonable in view of the decline of salmon and sea trout stocks in Wales and his recommendation was to confirm the Byelaws.

After consideration of the report and recent stock assessments I published my decision in a written statement on 16 July 2019 to confirm the Byelaws which will come into force from 1 January 2020. As you are aware, I am now looking for all parties to come together and concentrate their efforts on positive actions to help safeguard stocks as part of a Plan of Action for Salmon and Sea Trout.

I have asked Natural Resources Wales to lead on this Plan of Action, however, to maximise the chances of our salmon of sea trout stocks recovering all parties, including the Campaign for the Protection of Welsh Fisheries, will need to engage and contribute. I hope you will take this opportunity to contribute your views about how any threats to salmon and sea trout from issues such as water sports or any other issue can be managed to improve the status of these important fish stocks.

My advice to you regarding litigation was to highlight this option is available to you.

North West Angling Trust Fisheries Consultative Council

part of the Angling Trust and AT North West Freshwater Forum
14h September 2019 NWATFCC & CPWF recommendations to drafting of NASCO 2019 – 24 Implementation Plans

re: Improvements to Conservation targets, Stock reporting, Methodology and Decision process

Purpose; A short discussion paper to identify and highlight the scope of improvements to proposing a Quality Assured, open to view system and opportunity to harmonise mainland UK conservation principles and strategy

Validation – Independent validation of existing or new system procedures is required with periodic review to provide quality assurance.
Reason – the present system of river classification and decision structure process first introduced in 2004 (and updates) is not validated or subject to periodic review. The present systems frame recently introduced Regulatory measures and are both open to and currently being challenged.
In implementing National England & Wales Salmon Byelaws, the EA & NRW share common regulatory undertakings framed by NASCO approved salmon conservation objectives, reporting methodology and decision process, yet have introduced quite separate national conservation strategies in relation to fisheries management of stocks. Specifically C & R measures and method restrictions.

Reaching a single Biological Reference Point interpretation of a Rivers spawning target (Conservation Limit, Management Target etc)
Reason – a single BRP will provide clearer focus to meeting and achieving conservation objectives. Conservation Limit and higher river specific Management Target is frequently misquoted and misunderstood in relation to river Management Objectives and incorrectly associated in generic terms with reporting “management targets”.
Scotland and Ireland have undergone this process, defining MSY (Minimum Sustainable Yield) as the single spawning CL biological reference point.

Review and revision of individual River CL`s
Reason – in both the stock recruitment curve (SRC – egg to smolt) and replacement line (RL – marine, post smolt to returning adult) phase, assumptions in setting and defining CL are being questioned as regards the need for updating Salmon Action Plan estimates and targets. The accuracy of RL & SRC model principles and predictions in times of significant trend change has to reassessed, as with decisions made in 2004 to reduce national River CL to lowering marine survival estimates that have significantly worsened since that time. The mechanism of estimating actual individual CL from total wetted area and density (eggs /100m2) has to somehow balance and take a account of waterbodies that are not and unlikely to meeting WQ standards, suffer from degraded spawning/nursery habitat and significant un-quantified predation losses.

Redefining and simplifying Management Objectives and River Status methodology
Reason – set out below are the fundamental weaknesses and flaws with the current River classification methodology – use of the Linear Regression trend and five year forward prediction of probability of meeting Management objectives.

1. What is a rivers Management Objective and is it statistical precise ? Originally defined as a River that meets or exceeds its CL in 4 years out of 5 on average or 80% of the time. Found to be statistically imprecise and has recently been amended in the published 2018 Stocks Assessment Report to exceeding CL in 4 years out of 5 or 80% of the time. The question that is asked is whether the regressed Linear trend actually expresses MO ?
The alternate model being proposed is that a rivers MO exceeds CL on average in the last 5 historic years. This is statistically precise and provides the best mean actual 5 year trend data to an exact % CL attainment. Appropriate river classification management decisions and C & R measures can then be framed around precise real time trend performance.

2. Applying Variable corrections to spawning stock and River egg deposition estimates. Seven variables are applied to the majority of rivers reliant on rod catch returns to quantify final female 1SW/MSW component numbers and their weight/egg bearing capacity to estimate a Rivers total spawning egg deposition to CL. The original 2004 methodology and subsequent annual Assessment reports clearly state the accuracy of egg deposition estimates and predictive trend forecasting required incorporation of revising seasonal variations of rod exploitation on individual rivers, as one of seven variables. In relation to annual reviewing of rod exploitation rate variables, these are specifically rod effort, river flow conditions and run timing/out of season proportions of the run. Rod exploitation rate estimates have not been reviewed and revised nationally in a time series 1994 – 2018 when Salmon Action Plans and CL were originally framed around 2000. Rod effort regionally and nationally has dropped alarmingly to 27 – 35% of 1994 estimate. The Appendix Tables 6, 8 & 21 indicate that reduced rod effort is the major and principle cause of declining rod catch and CL attainment performance. River flows are threatened by abstraction pressures and extreme rainfall events and extended periods of rainfall shortage. These in turn shorten the window of angler participation and perceived favourable salmon running and take conditions. A quality assured system has to place periodic reviews at the heart of its system procedures and with it the accuracy of species rod effort, catch reporting, weight scale determination of components and fecundity. We recommend a single reporting statement of key River variables along similar lines to the Table.22 Information request to NRW of their annual review and revising policy for assessing stocks.

3. What is the 20 percentile of the linear regression trend and is it expressing a Rivers MO ? Hugely complex area of Bayesian analysis of time series trend distribution which few fisheries managers can interpret or explain. In my simple terms the Linear regression trend line is depicting a rivers 10 year historic performance where 80% of a Rivers annual attainment in its moving 10 year timeframe is above its 20th percentile trend line. Concern being that the trend line is not statistically expressing MO (its median or midpoint value in its best 80% years attainment), but as we know a much reduced precautionary trend based on higher management target. The proposed alternate model – 5 year MAT of % CL (Table 24 Option 2 with current model comparisons) simplifies and precisely maps actual river attainment.
4. Should we continue to use current methodology where “predicted” trend forecasts map a 15 year Linear (straight-line) projections ? No, River trends are not linear and if we make that assumption there is a high risk that predictions will fail. Salmon River performance map cycles of abundance, with good years followed by low or lower abundance. Fig. 6, 7 & 8 illustrate how 15 year linear predictions fail with rivers that exhibit longer and stronger salmon cycles. The NW river graphs for the Eden, Ribble & Lune illustrate these trough predictions in comparison with the River Wye in that same timeframe with over optimistic predictions of improving stocks. Rivers with good CL attainment performance over 10 historic years do not become extinct in a short 5 year forward projection window as predicted in several NW Rivers over the years 2014, 2015 & 2016. The use of the proposed 5 year historic average or mean CL River attainment makes no forward prediction of stock performance, relying on most recent real time data.
The model produces the necessary dampening effect in strong cycles and assurance required in decision making to account for seasonal variations that in some years can be significant.

5. Comparisons of predictive to actual recorded status in 5 years time forecasts have been poor. Table. 23 is an analysis of the accuracy of EA & NRW five year forward predictive stock status forecast for the current 64 English & Welsh monitored Rivers in the 2008 – 2017 timeframe, illustrating low accuracy on which regulatory stock management decisions are made

6. Use of log transformed and non log assessment charts – in recent years Log transformed charts have superseded actual scale log assessment charts. The visual scale of actual trend prediction and a Rivers annual CL attainment has been lost in this process. Log scale assessments are clearly masking Linear regression trends that for some Rivers cause unrealistic and extreme predictive stock forecasts. See Fig. 6, 7 & 8 again.
7. Do the four risk status groups and specifically PaR & PNaR status that form the 90% range of probability that a river will meet its MO in 5 years time, provide a good interpretation of a Rivers performance? Rivers that can report an exact % estimate of actual historic 5 year MAT attainment as proposed, will provide clearer and more accurate interpretation of actual trend performance with greater clarity in national/regional trend reporting. Precise Rivers stock assessment classifications bands (e.g. 10% bands) can then more clearly define decision making step procedures. An example of this model classification option with applied Decision process – C & R measures is set out in Table. 24 The Option 2 model was produced in February 2018. In essence, similar to the “Scottish style” grading approach with classification assessments that can be reviewed annually, based on 5 year MAT % CL river performance and visible and easily interpreted by fisheries managers and anglers.
The Option 2 model example guidelines for the 64 English & Wales monitored Rivers are set out below and framed on current CL target values and applied variables and SAP estimates.
Rivers exceeding 5 year MAT of CL target (> 100%) – required to meet 80% C & R target

“ 80 to 100% 5 year MAT of CL target (80 >100%) “ “ “ 90% C & R target

“ below 80% 5 year MAT of CL target (< 80%) “ “ “ 100% Mandatory C & R

Resetting the Decision Structure Process framework – using clear precise river classification status & C & R measures strategies
For England and Wales the Decision Structure Process can be reset in the decision flow chart to a Rivers MAT % CL attainment, whilst maintaining and reviewing the CL principles & targets and applied variables. Annual review of river performance to CL attainment will flow visibly from simplified annual assessments and the focus and effort can shift to ensuring River data (rod catch, rod effort/river conditions/rod exploitation rates, weight, fecundity etc) are clean and accurate.
In tandem that Index River counter/trap datasets are providing outputs that are reviewed and revised to linked reference Rivers and SAP`s.
The Scottish grading system underwent a consultation process that generated a 5 year MAT CL equivalent model, on clear lines with yearly review of river Status and applied measures. The Scottish model accounts for seasonal factors – river flow, out of season runs etc and the Consultation enabled a review and major revision of wetted area River estimates, with MSY defining River CL targets.

Conclusion
These proposals and model suggestion allows UK jurisdictions to maintain existing CL setting and annual attainment to CL and then build in appropriate break points for setting probability or risk of meeting a precise MO as the Rivers actual 5 year MAT performance. Annual revision of status will flow from this and necessary revision of seasonal factors and variable corrections.
The new methodology procedures would remove the Linear Regression trend and 5 year forward predictive forecasting that is widely criticised.
Focus can then concentrate on ensuring rod catch, counter/trap, variable and seasonal data is clean and accurate.
An opportunity might then be realised to harmonise mainland conservation strategies and systems with obvious potential operational and reporting benefits. Mike Ashwin. redfa/nwatfcc 14.09.19

16th September 2019

Sir David Henshaw – NRW Board (interim Chair) NRW Board Members
Via email: nrwboardsecretariat@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk

Re: NRW fisheries bylaw proposals

Dear Sir David and fellow Board Members,

We find it necessary to make you aware of the serious concerns that were raised at a meeting of angling representatives from the Dee and Gwynedd Local Fisheries Groups held at the Owain Glyndwr Hotel, Corwen on Saturday 7th September. 19 Fishing Clubs/Organisations with a combined membership of several thousand anglers were represented at this meeting which was called as a result of the anger and frustration that is being caused by the actions of NRW in its relentless pursuit of a legislative solution in the case of both the All Wales Byelaws and Cross-Border Rivers Rod and Line (Salmon and Sea Trout) (Wales) Byelaws 2019, both of which are referred to in Paper 19-09-B14 which will be presented to you during your meeting on Thursday of this week.

You should also be aware that those present at the Corwen Meeting are well respected figures within both their own organisations and the angling community in North Wales in general and furthermore have extensive knowledge of their own rivers. That such people are talking in terms of militant action and civil disobedience should give you great cause for concern

At the close of the NRW Board Meeting on 18th January 2018 the gulf between angling stakeholders and NRW was highlighted by board member Zoe Henderson and this was followed by much talk of how “we have failed to engage with stakeholders” and must take immediate steps to put this right. Subsequent events at the Inquiry into the All Wales Byelaws during January and March of this year when Counsel for NRW saw fit to attempt to discredit ordinary decent people who sought only to protect their own fisheries from NRW’s actions has plunged that already fractured relationship to new depths. The fact that Counsel and External Solicitors were paid the princely sum of £259,978.26 to carry out these actions only adds insult to injury. That the Principal Fisheries Advisor explained at the Inquiry that in a previous acknowledgment that anglers know their own rivers better than NRW what he really meant was that they know the location of the stiles and footpaths is laughable as well as insulting. The end result is that there are a number of angling clubs who will no longer engage in any future meetings with NRW whilst their concerns are treated in such a dismissive way. Furthermore they will instruct their bailiffs to no longer check that their members have purchased a rod licence and to only enforce their own clubs’ rules. Further concerns related to the decline in the number of both local and visiting anglers despite the encouraging numbers of both salmon and sea trout that have been observed in our rivers this year. This will have repercussions on the ability of smaller community based clubs to afford to rent waters in the future and be a threat to their very existence. The presence of anglers on the riverbank also acts as both a deterrent to poachers and a source of intelligence for NRW’s Enforcement Officers and it is therefore unsurprising that increasing illegal activity has been a major concern for us during the year.

Education, co-operation, empowerment and partnership has seen Voluntary Return Rates rise year on year to an all-time high of 86% across Wales yet NRW has chosen to turn its back on those values which have brought us so far, in the pursuit of an autocratic solution. In so doing it has alienated those very stakeholders whose knowledge of their own rivers is so necessary for their recovery and that is a great concern for those of us who are actively involved with both Rivers Trusts in North Wales. NRW may recognise that “we have able partners in the rivers trusts and need to maintain a productive relationship with them” but is making it ever more difficult for those organisations to recruit volunteers.

The following should give great cause for concern.
We note in Paper 19-09-B14

Arrangements for the cross-border rivers Dee and Wye
4. Following Board approval in July 2018, an application will shortly be made to the Minister for confirmation of new rod fishing byelaws for the rivers Dee and Wye (The Cross-Border Rivers Rod and Line (Salmon and Sea Trout) (Wales) Byelaws 2019). Because these byelaws have been dependent on ministerial confirmation of the All Wales Byelaws, this application could not have been made prior to receipt of that confirmation.

Wales, along with all other countries which have runs of Atlantic Salmon, is duty bound to follow NASCO (North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation) policy.
NASCO International (North Atlantic) Conservation Policy and common Wales & England national Policy is defined in the 2018 Assessment of Salmon Stocks & Fisheries in England & Wales
(Background report), Annexe 7 – Salmon Management Procedures in England & Wales, Page 77 & 78 – Decision Structure in E & W.
The decision making structure set out in the report is very clear

“3. Third stage – option evaluation (purple boxes)
The purpose of this stage is to set out and evaluate options to realise the required changes in exploitation. For rivers where 50%≤p<95% (where p= probability of failing the management objective) and the trend is down and with an annual catch of >20 salmon and C&R rate < 90%, then voluntary C&R will promoted for 1 year. If this fails to significantly improve C&R rates, mandatory C&R or closure of the fishery will be considered. Protected rivers such as SACs (Special Areas of Conservation) are given particular emphasis”

This is recognised in NRW Board Paper B B 40.15 Annex 2, TECHNICAL REPORT: MANAGEMENT OPTIONS TO ADDRESS THE DECLINE IN STOCKS OF SALMON AND SOME SEA TROUT IN WALES
which states quite correctly that:
The decision structure is currently not applied to:-
• rivers where the voluntary C&R rate is greater than 90%, as it has been felt that the extra benefit on any individual river does not warrant the costs of pursuing statutory control.

Furthermore NRW’s 2017 “Know your river document” for the Dee makes the following statement: “The release rate in 2017 was 91%. This is an excellent result and needs to be maintained”
Put simply the River Dee is fully compliant with NASCO policy and according to NRW’s own documentation “does not warrant the costs of pursuing statutory control”.

On that basis the introduction of statutory legislation would be a clear breach of NASCO policy.

You will not be surprised that we will be challenging any application to the Minister for confirmation of new rod fishing byelaws for the cross border Dee most strongly and furthermore will have the support of our English colleagues who will mount a similar challenge to the EA given that “It has previously been agreed

with the EA that they will make a simultaneous matching application to DEFRA for confirmation of complementary byelaws in the English parts of these two cross-border rivers”. We also believe that there will be considerable support from AMs for this action.
Furthermore we will also seek deferment of the All Wales Byelaws until such time as voluntary C&R has been promoted for 1 year in accordance with NASCO guidelines. NRW’s Know Your River documents clearly show that no active promotion has ever taken place.

90 – 95% of the salmon that enter Welsh rivers are not caught by anglers. Given that anglers currently return 86% of that relatively small %age of salmon that they do catch, it makes no sense whatsoever to drive them away and allow poachers to fill the vacuum, particularly as this will result in significantly greater losses.

Anglers, and the revenue which they generate, are vital if our fisheries are to survive and a worthwhile Salmon and Sea Trout Plan of Action is to become a reality. NRW has to stop being so dismissive of our concerns and be prepared to participate in a meaningful partnership. That in itself requires a significant change of policy.

Yours sincerely

John Eardley – Strategy Officer, Campaign for the Protection of Welsh Fisheries

Dr Robin Parry – Chair, Gwynedd Local Fisheries Advisory Group

Mervyn Williams – Chair, Dee Local Fisheries Advisory Group

On behalf of:
Bangor on Dee Salmon Angling Association
Campaign for the Protection of Welsh Fisheries
Capenhurst Angling Club
Chirk Syndicate
Clwyd Federation of Angling Clubs
Corwen and District Angling Club
Dolgellau Angling Association
Dolwyddelan Angling Association
Llanbrynmair Angling Association
Llangollen Maelor Angling
Llyn Guides
Ogwen Valley Angling Association
Penrhyn Fishing Club
Prince Albert Angling Society
Rhyl and St. Asaph Angling Association
Rossett and Gresford Fly Fishers
Seiont Gwyrfai and Llyfni Fishing Society
Vale of Clwyd Angling Club
Wirral Game Fishing Club

Lesley Griffiths AC/AM
Gweinidog yr Amgylchedd, Ynni a Materion Gwledig Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs

Ein cyf/Our ref LG/06583/19

Llywodraeth Cymru Welsh Government

Chris White chriswhite.cohite@gmail.com
12th August 2019

Thank you for your letters of 26 July to myself and the First Minister, regarding my decision to approve Natural Resources Wales’ (NRW) ‘All Wales’ Byelaw proposals for salmon and sea trout. I am responding to you on both letters, as this subject area falls under my portfolio as Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs.

I understand some anglers will be disappointed with my decision, but please be assured it was not taken lightly. We all agree there has been an ongoing decline in salmon and sea trout, as you state in your letter, and this has again been confirmed in the recently published stock assessments which unfortunately show stock levels for both species are still a concern. To avoid stocks falling to unsafe levels which may lead to stock collapse, we must take action now.

I recognise, as does the inspector in his report, anglers are not primarily responsible for the decline of salmon and sea trout, but are a contributing factor. As such, my statement on 16 July clearly stated we must also tackle the other contributing factors. I have tasked NRW to lead on a Salmon and Sea Trout Plan of Action, taking forward a significant amount of work to reverse the decline of salmon and sea trout. NRW will work with partners to tackle a// the issues impacting stocks including those highlighted by anglers at the inquiry such as obstructions to migration, water abstraction, fish eating birds and the need for robust enforcement.

The Welsh Government, of course, has a contribution to make to this plan. For example, I will be bringing in new regulations on agricultural pollution in January 2020 to reduce the risks posed to fish stocks and wildlife. I will also consider other proposals as and when they are presented to me within the Plan of Action, and I note in your letter the call for responsible promotion and regulation of paddle sports to avoid the disturbance of spawning fish.

Bae Caerdydd • Cardiff Bay
Caerdydd • Cardiff
CF99 1NA

Canolfan Cyswllt Cyntaf / Fir st Point of Contact Centre :
0300 0604400
Gohebiaeth.Le sl ey.Griff iths@ ll y w.cymru Corr esp ondence.Lesl ey.Griff i ths @gov.wales

Rydym yn croesawu derbyn gohebiaeth yn Gymraeg . Byddwn yn ateb gohebiaeth a dderbynnir yn Gymraeg yn Gymraeg ac ni fydd gohebu yn Gymraeg yn arwain at oedi.

We welcome receiving corresp ondence in Welsh . Any correspondence received in Welsh will be answered in Welsh and corresp ondin g in Welsh will not lead to a delay in resp onding.

If the plan is to succeed, and we are to reverse the decline in salmon and sea trout, everyone with an interest will need to engage and contribute. To achieve our shared goal it will require the combined efforts of all those who care about these magnificent fish to work constructively together and put prior differences aside. I sincerely believe anglers, such as yourself, and supporters of angling have a crucial role to play and I hope you will engage with NRW to develop and help deliver this plan.

I am hugely encouraged by the fact the majority of anglers (86%) already voluntarily return the salmon they catch and this number is increasing. This demonstrates the care and respect anglers show for salmon and their wish to protect them for the future. I see this as a clear sign local angling clubs will continue to thrive and adapt if this approach is passed on to new members.

It is clear to see the depth of feeling and passion on both sides of this debate, and this is reflected in your letter. I believe I have responded to your concerns around my decision and reasoning behind the appointment of the Planning Inspectorate to the Local Inquiry process in our previous correspondence (ref: LG/05045/19). I also confirmed I was content with the regulations put in place for the Inquiry and am satisfied the assigned Inspector was impartial and ensured an open and fair process. If you are still dissatisfied with any aspect of the inquiry process, or my decision, you are entitled to seek a Judicial Review.
Your’s

Lesley Griffiths AC/AM
Gweinidog yr Amgylchedd, Ynni a Materion Gwledig Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs

Response to Petitions Committee WG – All Wales Byelaws (Fisheries) – Public Inquiry – Inspector’s Report

Petitioners Response – Mr Reuben Woodford (Afon Ogwen Anglers in conjunction with CPWF/Petitioners) [PetitionP-05-810 Give Welsh Fishing Clubs and Salmon and Sea-Trout a Chance]

To Report [ENV/3209811] 190/16-LG-Written Statement-Marine and Fisheries – Inspectors Report

30 August 2019

Summary of key points:

• General and specific suppression of objector/CPWF evidence
• General and specific tendency to adopt NRW stance even when unsubstantiated by objective evidence – an appearance of bias
• The inspectors report mirrors the dismissive tone and tact adopted by NRW. It should be noted that within the PI proceedings NRW legal team stooped as low as to belittle objectors.
• In our dealings with NRW it is very apparent there has been little compromise nor is there comprise within this report. At worst, the comments made are based on conjecture, in particular when it comes to ‘fishing’ matters.
• There are a considerable number of erroneous statements made – therefore the context of numerous arguments is lost.
• The phrase ‘Notwithstanding’ unfortunately weighs heavily upon us, as used re-iteratively within the report by the inspector it marks the pre-cursory signal that our evidence is to be given a superficial airing only to be superseded by statements reflective of NRWs own, backed up with varying degrees of substantiated evidence. 

Below are key elements of objector evidence, we perceive the report fails to substantiate and therefore fails to apportion requisite weight and influence in the formulation of conclusions and thus ultimately the inspectors decision upon the necessity for; proportionality of and how reasonable the byelaw measures actually are.

Aside from the above, in addition to the substantive evidence we provided at the Inquiry that the byelaws simply cannot be enforced, sources at NRW now indicate they are limiting their enforcement potential even further since the Inquiry to a mere handful of specialist fisheries enforcement officers across Wales. In the absence of regulatory enforcement the angling community currently sit between a rock and hard place, alienated from shaping their future however tasked with an unmanageable and obtuse workload.

The report omits to present critical objector evidence in appropriate context for the following:

• Shortfalls and implications of 1) Stock Reporting 2) River Classification Model 3) Policy – Decision Making Process
• Critical relevance of CPWF evidence as a contribution to future statistical reviews – (The very same evidence NRW legal team attempted to quash is now considered highly relevant to the ongoing process) this evidence underpins a number of the objectors arguments and was supressed
• The River Classification Model underpinning NRW’s evidence – has not been peer reviewed and is not periodically reviewed. This leaves the system open to challenge.
• The ‘precautionary principle’ is already built into NRWs statistical analysis – manual application of the concept beyond that stage creates an overly precautionary response.
• Under NASCO Guidance all rivers in Wales should, formally be given the opportunity to achieve 90% return rates for salmon before mandatory measures are considered. This has not happened and is a failure of ministerial direction.
• CPWF/angling community’s proposals for a community centric alternative to the byelaw measures, conducive with principles of sustainable management and well-being goals.
• Progress made by the angling community – 86% return rate of salmon across Wales in 2016 – is treated as failure not success.
• There are rivers within the 23 principal salmon rivers in Wales that are compliant year on year with their Conservation Limits (compliance with NASCO Management Objective) – mandatory measures should not be applied to them under the NASCO Decision Structure.
• All rivers in Wales outside of the 23 principal salmon rivers are subject to the All Wales Byelaws order. This is in direct contravention of the NASCO Guidance and a contradiction that these are not, pan Wales byelaws as stipulated by NRW. This is clearly application of the organisations institutional preference and is contradicted by their approach to managing sea-trout stocks.
• Consideration of rivers on a catchment by catchment basis – which is what the Inquiry has been stated to provide – has not been possible. This is illustrated by the blanket and generalised statements made in the report.
• There has been a critical failure by NRW to ingrain considerations of well-being (WFG Act (Wales) 2016) and principles of sustainable management (Environment Act 2010) (achievement of well-being). In parallel to these statutory requirements NRW have not qualified the socio-economic; socio-cultural risks posed by these measures to community angling clubs and communities. No true evaluation of the byelaw measures has been made.
• The mandatory byelaws are inequitable; unfavourable and infringe on people’s rights.
• One of the principal reasons for disagreement between CPWF and the NRW is because their inaction and inability to manage other threats has led to stock decline on certain, but not all rivers.
• Loss of salmon fishing methods will severely inhibit many anglers fishing for salmon under most water conditions.

Further detailed review of the report is contained in the document below.

The consequence of the above is to disable appropriate consideration and illustration of requisite evidence to make an appropriate decision upon the necessity for; proportionality; how reasonable the byelaw measures are and their enforceability.

Reflecting upon the perceived inadequacies of the process (Please see letter to First Minister – included – Originator Chris White CPWF) and weakness of the report to present a seemingly fair and balanced representation of fact and requisite decisions. It is with urgent necessity that we ask members of the Senedds Petitions Committee to make a stand for appropriate judicial and democratic process to prevail.

Without the angling community holding a pivotal role within the management of our fisheries and inappropriate and high risk byelaw measures in place we will all struggle to achieve meaningful progress. Many fishing clubs are currently fire-fighting the consequences of the Cabinet Secretaries decision – our resources are meagre and resilience challenged. Something has to change.  

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

On behalf of representatives from the angling community of Wales (petitioners),

Reuben Woodford

(Afon Ogwen Anglers/Petitioners/Working with CPWF)

   ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Detailed consideration of the Inspectors Report:

{The Inspectors comments are underlined/italic Inspector}

[Our comments – bulleted]

548. [ Deviation from objective evidence at catchment scale] NRW accept that fishing effort i.e. rod days fished, are not taken into account in terms of estimations relating to compliance with Conservation Limit assessments…..In addition, NRW maintain, equally the impact of weather conditions can affect fish migration and angling effort.

However, notwithstanding any shortcomings, in this regard, based on substantive evidence available, it is apparent there has been, overall, a significant and sustained pattern of progressive decline in the majority of salmon and sea trout stocks in Wales.

• Angler’s behavioural responses have become a key variable in the variability of stock assessment as an extrapolation of catch return information.
• ‘Rod days fished’, critical to our understanding of the relevance of catch return data to actual stock is not considered by NRW.
• Generalisation of the pattern of fish stocks in Wales for salmon and sea trout stocks distracts from the catchment by catchment and conservation limit focus necessary to be able to make proportional decisions on a catchment by catchment basis.

555. The electro fishing surveys carried out by NRW indicated a marked and widespread reduction in abundance of salmon and trout fry across a number of catchments in Wales.

• Electro fishing surveys undertaken by NRW very rarely represent a widespread area of river catchment. It must also be recognised that the inspector’s statement only applies to a single years’ sample.
• The report fails to state that in some catchments there was no marked reduction in abundance of salmon or trout juveniles and therefore there is the appearance of bias.
• Without temporal context, there is no attempt to retain objectivity and balance in this statement – however there is apparent bias which suggests a far greater magnitude of phenomenon than the actual evidence illustrates.

558. Neither the above objections, or any others relating to data sources, provided substantive evidence to challenge the validity of NRW’s stock assessment data.

• This statement has the appearance of bias.
• The reader must be reminded that the ‘All Wales Byelaws’ Inquiry was responsible in part for considering evidence at a catchment scale.
• The validity of objective data presented for individual catchments, has been denied by imposition of blanket generic statements.
• Forming conclusions on this basis illustrates an intent to override a catchment view to this process; to deny the reader visibility of the catchment specific evidence that contradicts the broad brushstroke statements and an intent to ‘cover up’ evidence critical to assessing the proportionality of the byelaw proposals.

571. I would tend to agree with Mr Russell of NRW who expressed the view in oral evidence that ‘the absence of perfection doesn’t stop us acting in a precautionary way’

• The absence of a fit for purpose stock assessment methodology however provides reasonable doubt that we should all be cautious in the actions we take, as overstepping the mark in terms of the severity of the response imposes additional risks to both the angling and regulatory systems.
• As the Inquiry progressed and the inspectors report considers the ‘precautionary principle’, it appears the principle itself becomes an ever present all, consuming general rule of thumb that allows NRW to justify each and every decision it makes. The angling community do not oppose precautionary principles, however when the actions proposed are proven to be disproportionate to the evidence and counter to sustaining the resilience of fisheries and angling institutions, those actions in themselves can be seen to undermine the very system we are reliant upon.

574. [CPWF – Dublin Statisticians evidence] The above casts significant doubt as to the veracity of the evidence presented by the Dublin Statisticians via parties such as CPWF. Without significant evidence to indicate otherwise, I prefer the statistical testimony submitted by NRW whose three expert witnesses appeared before the Inquiry, as it was overall much more robust and justified than that of untested third party evidence given via objectors to the proposed byelaws.

• It has to be questioned, whether the inspector’s ‘preference’ for one statistical testimony over another has any bearing on his personal ability to comprehend the validity of those calculations. The inspector was at full liberty to seek independent expert witnesses to enable fully objective scrutiny of the evidence provided by both parties and yet he chose not to utilise this option. Ultimately, his decision upon very complex and contentious statistical analysis was reliant on the narrative dictated by NRW’s legal team and not necessarily an objective critique of facts.
• The time spent at the Inquiry by NRW’s barrister attempting to quash CPWF’s Dublin Statistician evidence was excessive and ultimately CPWF were prevented from presenting their evidence in entirety. Whilst the inspector had repeatedly throughout the Inquiry hurried members representing CPWF along, NRW were allowed an inordinate period over which to attempt to discredit a key element of CPWF’s evidence.
• It is very hard to envisage, how, bias can be thwarted, when ultimately evidence is concealed by manoeuvres unfit for a public inquiry of this nature.
• A critical fact of significant irony is not exposed by the report – that being, that the assessment process utilised by NRW and the EA in England is not quality assured and validated and both organisations are fully aware the stock assessment model must be revised.

576. Concerns raised by Mr Ashwin of CPWF and others were that NRW were not following NASCO guidance , nor that of its own, in terms of the procedure for the ‘Decision Structure’ for developing salmon fishing controls in Wales and England. That process, it is argued, requires in the first instance, voluntary measures to be adopted for these rivers – not mandatory measures.

• The requirement for this staged approach is clear. It is unclear therefore why and how NRW have deviated from best practice guidelines.
• The damage of not following this guidance is not only to bypass a means of empowering fishing clubs, but to leap frog forth into a high risk scenario with certain consequential impacts that NRW have on the basis of personal belief, chosen to play down and in some instances completely ignore.
• Considerations of proportionality and well-being have been denied by NRWs ‘draconian’ response – the inspector in para 578 unwittingly divulges NRW’s exact tact:

578. The approach taken by NRW is broadly in line with the Decision Structure i.e. they have considered a range of options and then selected their preferred options.

• NRW’s ‘preferred option’ of mandatory catch and release, which dictates crudely the method adaptions included in the byelaws has been common knowledge for many years.
• The regulator’s query has always been ‘what should we ban’, rather than ‘what should we promote’.
• Failing to make appropriate consideration of the proportionality of the measures and the likely consequential impacts upon current and future wellbeing over a transitional period (a statutory requirement placed upon them) has led to decisions not concordant with the decision structure, but mirroring NRW’s long standing ‘preferred option’. The ‘broad’ compliance with the decision structure referred to by the inspector becomes meaningless when behind that broad compliance sits a very specific failure to utilise it in a pragmatic way that assists in ironing out the dearth of problems this set of measures as a mandatory response delivers.
• What is quite clear in para 578 is that the inspector has failed to grasp 1) the risks posed by the ‘All Wales Byelaws’ to fish stocks and community angling clubs and what they provide to communities and through ecosystem services; 2) the inherent problem of being compliant with C&R targets that have until now been vague, variable and poorly communicated.
• There is no evidence ‘banning’ elements of fishing are going to result in positive outcomes. There is evidence, empowerment of anglers has wide ranging benefits. To suggest that the ‘precautionary approach’ by default equates to the byelaw measures is simply a misnomer and NRWs red herring of all red herrings reiterated by NRW’s legal and management team without proof of its validity.    

580 ….even if I had reservations about some elements of the statistical methodology employed by NRW , the entirety of the evidence base, would suggest the application of the precautionary approach…..would be prudent in terms of the interpretation of any data….

• Given a key part of the evidence base provided by NRW is reliant upon a river (risk status) classification system that is proven to be very poor at predicting actual salmon stock status and which the inspector states he has reservations about, it defies logic, that the ‘entirety’ of the evidence base is then seen by him to prove the necessity to apply a precautionary principle.
• It is quite evident from the reports consideration of the ‘precautionary principle’ that without exception, the byelaw measures as stipulated by NRW in their ‘preferred option’ are considered by the inspector as the only conceivable option which satisfies this requirement. This is simply not the case and it is a construct devised by NRW and substantiated by endless repetition rather than objective substance.

581 The proposed byelaws offer several solutions to the decline in fish stocks…..

• This is an erroneous statement and a misnomer which has spread like wild fire throughout this debate, being erroneously stated on a number of occasions by NRW management teams. NRW themselves stipulate that the ‘All Wales Byelaws’ are not the solution to the decline in fish stocks. It is exceptionally hard to instil this fact.
• It remains to be explained therefore why NRW have pursued this version of the byelaws to the extortionate cost, both time, money and resource of the organisation to the detriment of not providing a robust and holistic, course of action to tackling the causes of stock variability.  

589 Therefore, there is substantive and compelling scientific studies, in addition to first-hand anecdotal evidence that C&R is an effective management tool to maintain fish stocks and fisheries.

• This is an erroneous statement – on two counts.
• There is not clear evidence to illustrate that early season 100% mandatory C&R leads to increased salmon stock levels in Wales. There is substantive evidence which indicates the primary controls on salmon stock abundance are environmental controls/degradation.
• The statement also seems to be suggesting that C&R as a stand-alone measure has the propensity to maintain fish stocks – it does not.
• It is critical therefore that the proportionality of the byelaws is considered in true context and that C&R as a mandatory measure is understood fully in particular given as a proportional measure, it arguably carries greater ability to do widespread good and to support sustainable management principles. NRW’s approach deviates from a sustainable response because it focusses on an ideology which negates to consider the fundamental requirements of a system that retains functionality.

590 A common argument against the introduction of mandatory C&R was that most anglers already practice voluntary high levels of C&R e.g. the figure for 2016 is approximately 86%…..

• The primary focus of NRWs argument to counter the implications of this statement is that all salmon should be returned to the water. It is not nor should it be, necessary for every salmon caught to be returned to the water in most rivers in Wales.
• With reference to NASCO guidance, if there is a primary target to focus upon, then it is the 90% return rate. To class an 86% return rate by anglers on a voluntary basis as failure is disingenuous.
• The action of returning a mortally wounded fish to a river to fester as a carcass lies beyond the moral compass of most if not all anglers and the public at large.

592 Allowing anglers the freedom to continue to intentionally kill those fish would further risk declining stock of these species, and would also introduce inequality between those who voluntarily practice C&R and those who do not…

• Misleading statement – The primary causal factors of stock decline are perpetuated because of regulatory inaction to manage the environmental inhibitors to optimal fish stocks. The angling community do not seek the ‘freedom’ to kill fish, they seek the ability to apply a proportional system that sustains rather than undermines fisheries management.
• Angling and the stock assessment system thrive on inequality.

Invariably, the primary inequality is not between those who keep and return fish, but between those who expend hundreds of hours to fish and return fish with the intention of keeping the occasional fish and the casual angler who contributes by a far lesser degree to the catch return statistic that allows NRW to attempt stock assessment. Without that inequality – NRW have no stock management system.

• There are considerations of equality and fairness to be made, however these are only effectively managed and sustained at club and catchment level.

593 The proposed byelaws will establish a level playing field.

• It has been illustrated that the byelaw proposals are un-enforceable.
• NRW have now announced plans to disband most of their specialised fisheries enforcement potential.
• The disparity between ‘obedient citizen’ and ‘hard-core poacher’ will widen.

596 [Hook Restrictions]

The proposed byelaws……

• Erroneous statement

Hook size restrictions will reduce the chances of deep penetration and potential fatal injury…

• Erroneous statement

Restrictions on the use of flying ‘c’ type lures……

• Erroneous statement

600 [Ban on worm fishing – salmon]Objectors made no significant arguments to counter the ban

• Erroneous statement
• CPWF illustrated that it is impossible to fish certain spate conditions for salmon without use of the worm method. It is traditionally the most prized angling experience on the spate, rivers of North Wales. Fishing with worm for salmon is a traditional method applied under all water conditions and seen as a ‘fair method’ during low water conditions when spinning usually is not.
• Adaption to the worming technique in an early strike makes this a highly favourable method in terms of limiting damage to fish.
• Omission of this evidence in the report is unacceptable.

603 [Bunching of worms]

• Comments made by the inspector are mere conjecture and make a mockery of the reports repeated reference to the inadequacy of angling representatives anecdotal evidence of methods they and they alone practice.

604 During the cross examination of Mr Gough of NRW by an objector, it was claimed small rivers can only be fished with worms, which in effect would preclude them from angling; Mr Gough’s experience indicated otherwise. I suspect the reality is the effectiveness of fishing such rivers without worm bait is very much down to the skill of the individual angler.

• Given Mr Gough has as far as we are aware very little if any angling experience, it is apparent this conclusion is drawn upon the basis of predominantly conjecture.
• There are hundreds of small rivers across Wales which sit outside of the 23 principal Salmon rivers, and yet without explanation apart from a general intent to include them under a ‘precautionary principal’, they are subsumed by the byelaws.

607 In terms of justifying the use of shrimp/prawn to after 1^st September, NRW highlight that for a reason currently unknown, salmon will take a shrimp in warm water conditions……

• Salmon will take any bait/lure under summer conditions if it is presented well. Worm and crustacean baits have the advantage of being naturally alluring to salmon.
• This element of the byelaws defies logic when considered in context.

.. there was no substantive evidence to challenge NRW’s approach.

• Erroneous statement

608The overall approach to the use of shrimp/prawn is measured and proportionate.

• This regulation constitutes a ban on bait fishing for salmon for at least 4 months of a 5.5 month season on average.
• Most fishing with shrimp/prawn is undertaken in the spring and summer months.
• The conclusion drawn is based upon erroneous evidence.

611 [Sea-trout slot limit 60cm]

• Deviation from an evidence based/catchment specific justification for the byelaws.
• The opportunity to take a ‘trophy fish’ of any kind (traditionally the greatest draw to angling for migratory species) is denied in entirety by this additional step.
• Science contradicts the importance of these fish stipulating they have done their work (genetically).

613 [Striking a balance – nets/rods]

• Deviation from an evidence based/catchment specific justification for the byelaws – rivers without nets.

614 [General poor state of sea trout stocks]

• Deviation from an evidence based/catchment specific justification for the byelaws.

624 [Equality considerations] As regard the ban on worm fishing for salmon, it is argued this would affect people with physical limitations who are not able to fish with either a fly or spinner; this was deemed to be indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

626 [Adaptions to Byelaws]

• The adaptions to the byelaws do not mitigate the consequence of ‘indirect discrimination’ imposed upon salmon anglers with physical limitations during the majority of the fishing season.

Furthermore, less physically able anglers would still be able to continue to use bait for coarse fishing which is unaffected by the proposed byelaws.

• North Wales Rivers are primarily not coarse fisheries.
• In context this statement implies that less physically able anglers can go elsewhere for their fishing experience – this appears to be direct discrimination against less physically able anglers.

All these measures are a proportionate response given the current state of sea trout and salmon stocks in Wales.

• Blanket approach.
• Apparent false justification of discriminatory decision.
• Deviation from an evidence based/catchment specific justification for the byelaws.
• This statement does not appear to be appropriate to this paragraph

631 [Enforcement]

I accept there may be challenges to effective enforcement however that is not a defence to doing nothing at all….

• NRWs statements are given president over CPWF evidence
• There is substantive evidence to illustrate that the byelaws are not enforceable
• The unenforceability of the byelaws alone illustrates the non-functional scenario presented to WG
• The alternative option is not to ‘do nothing at all’. The alternative is the option presented by CPWF to empower angling clubs to optimise sustainable angling practices on their waters

632

I have no reason to doubt the proposed byelaws would not be generally accepted and complied with as per previous byelaws…

• NRWs statements are given president over CPWF evidence. Critical CPWF evidence is not given exposure.
• Significant evidence was presented by representatives of CPWF illustrating barriers to the enforceability of the byelaws, not least opposition by the majority of anglers.

635

..there is still a preponderance of other licensed anglers, riparian land owners, other members of the public and other agencies who would still be on the river banks and be likely to report incidents

• The preponderance of evidence from the angling community does not substantiate this position.
• The byelaw process has not only alienated the angling community, but many rural communities in Wales.

636 [Socio –Economic Impacts]

• NRWs statements are given president over CPWF evidence. Critical CPWF evidence is not given exposure.

637 [Socio – Economic Impacts] NRW’s consideration of the socio-economic impacts of the proposed byelaws is detailed in several documents, contrary to the view of a number of objectors who indicated otherwise.

• The risk to community angling clubs has not been qualified
• Without the necessary consideration of the direct and indirect consequences of the byelaws, the socio-economic; socio-cultural and thus all well-being considerations cannot and have not been made.
• Whilst NRW argue over the net worth of angling to Wales at a macro scale, localised impacts and the long-term resilience of clubs remains the key concern to local volunteers fire-fighting to sustain community clubs – the means of access for local anglers to local waters.

641 I concur with NRW’s viewpoint that if nothing is done to eliminate the intentional killing of fish, whilst other initiatives to improve freshwater habitats are pursued, then the timescales for stock recovery will inevitably be prolonged.

• There is clear evidence that the angling community in Wales have progressively adapted angling practices in a proportional manner to protect vulnerable stocks of salmon and sustain the resilience of angling clubs.  
• The primary limitation upon stock enhancement is arguably inactivity by NRW and its legacy organisations. As Peter Gough (head of NRW fisheries and NRW manager behind the byelaws) stipulated at the inquiry, catchment improvements would only come to fruition if river restoration plans did not sit on the shelf within an organisation that is clearly resource poor.
• The byelaws are not a proportional response in relation to the evidence nor the current level of progress made by NRW to restore environments capable of sustaining optimal smolt production.

644

[angler tourism/tourism impacts]

• Critical CPWF evidence is not given exposure.

645 Overall in terms of the socio-economic impacts of the proposed byelaws, I prefer NRW’S evidence…

• The All Wales Byelaws impose a risk to community angling clubs.
• NRW do not have evidence to illustrate the risk or means of mitigation to manage the short to medium term impacts on clubs through lost members and the consequential impacts that brings.

646 [Other measures to address the decline in fish stocks]

• There is a significant gap between the progress aspired to by NRW and actions on the ground.
• As indicated at the PI NRWs reputation for developing weighty strategic plans over meaningful outcomes is clear – The State of Natural Resources report (SoNaRR).

650 NRW maintain that if the other measures were pursued in the absence of the proposed byelaws, then there is a risk that on-going catch and kill fishing would increase the risk of further decline of stocks, as the on-going depletion of spawning reserves would continue.

• On a catchment by catchment basis there is no guarantee other measures will be pursued. (these are catchment by catchment byelaws) As Dr Mawle stipulated at the PI the byelaws serve little purpose if the other habitat improvements are not achieved.
• The current level of kill by anglers (2016 figures) represents a mere 4% shortfall in the ideological NASCO set threshold. It is not angling with rod and line that poses the significant risks to fish stocks.

652      [Statutory purposes of NRW]

• The report omits critical CPWF evidence which illustrates NRW has failed to promote:
• The Sustainable Management Principle
• Well-being considerations in line with the WFG Act

• The byelaws pose a significant risk to economic prosperity; socio-cultural/amenity values; health and participation; evidence and analytics; future partnerships and prevention of illegal activity. NRW have played down these risks and undertaken no meaningful risk assessment. Well-being considerations have simply not been ingrained in this process, thus allowing NRW to engineer measures they falsely claim have little consequence in the short term and will bring well-being benefit in the long.

• The Well-being Act, interprets ‘Sustainable Development as the process of improving well-being.’

This is our joint aim and NRW’s responsibility under ‘the WFG Act’.

As NRW have developed measures that illicit ill-being, then this is not ‘sustainable development’ and those measures through definition should be deemed inappropriate.

653      Despite the reservations of some, there is no substantive evidence to believe that NRW or others would not actively pursue the range of other measures referred to above, particularly bearing in mind its duties under the aforementioned statutory framework.

• Various NRW managers/technical specialist at the PI indicated the organisation is currently hamstrung by resource deficit.
• NRW stipulated at the PI they did not have a requirement to consider all 7 well-being goals as stipulated under the WFG Act – No evidence was provided to substantiate this position.
• SPFST – Core Guidance Document WFG Act – Stipulates  in terms of ‘well-being considerations’ – this is ‘about complex , but real world interconnections between our environment, our economy, our society and culture.’ Without due consideration for the limitations posed by the byelaws, NRW have applied certainty to the ability of these byelaws to stimulate stock recovery and improve future well-being.’ Neither assumption is evidence based.

658      In any event irrespective of the impacts of avian or other predation on Welsh salmon and sea trout fish stocks, the fact of the matter is that those fish are generally in a very vulnerable state, and the deliberate killing of fish is unsustainable and contributes to the problem albeit to a more modest extent. 

• Erroneous statement
• Why if this is the case, has gathering evidence in relation to natural predation impacts been an afterthought? Failure to apply proportional response.
• CPWF evidence supressed. Catchment specific evidence supressed.

661      The proposed byelaws would also apply to a modest number of other non-principal salmon rivers. NRW accept that the inclusion of these other non-principal rivers in the proposed byelaws may give the appearance of a blanket approach.

• Erroneous statement
• Clear indication of misuse of precautionary principle – inclusion of all these rivers is a failure to comply with the NASCO Decision Management Structure.
• This is a ‘blanket approach’.
• Catchment specific evidence supressed – Ogwen and other rivers exceeding CL year on year in compliance with NASCO Management Objective.

•  
• Erroneous statement

•  
• Erroneous statement

665      I do not consider direct parallels can be made between NRW’s approach as advanced in the proposed byelaws and that of equivalent agencies in other jurisdictions.

• NASCO Guidance has not been complied with.
• The Environment Act/ WFG Act places greater onus on Wales to consider sustainable principles and thus well-being considerations (social, economic, cultural & environment) in the short, medium and long term with the focus on parallel advantages to all. The consequential impacts of the byelaws illicit ill-being.
• Wales is being put at disadvantage to other jurisdictions.

667 [NASCO Guidance; Conservation Limits; Allowable Angling Practices]

• NASCO Guidance has not been complied with.

671      Objectors…..considered their views were simply ignored and that the outcome was a fait accompli.

• There has been no meaningful attempt to reach consensus.
• Minutes of Local Group Meetings used as evidence at the Inquiry were bias and censored and thus non representative of proceedings during the consultation period.

682 [10 year byelaws; 5 year interim review]

• The 10 year period compounds the negative consequences of the byelaws.
• No details of the interim review have been made publicly available.

684 I am satisfied the byelaws have been progressed on a sound legal basis and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, with all interested parties given the opportunity to present their case.

• Reference – Letter Chris White to First Minister – Copy Included

685 NRW who have assessed the impacts of the proposed byelaws on those likely to be affected in a proportionate manner.

• Erroneous statement
• NRW have not assessed the impacts of the byelaws

688 (Well-being Goals)

• This has not been done by NRW

689 (Well-being Goals)

• No evidence was presented to substantiate this statement – CPWF presented evidence to illustrate that ill-being is being stimulated by lack of appropriate consideration of well-being goals within this process.

695      There was no convincing arguments that the raft of measures contained within the proposed byelaws were not appropriate, reasonable and proportionate.

• Critical CPWF evidence is supressed and given undue consideration within the report.
• Critical CPWF evidence was supressed and given undue consideration within the Inquiry.

697 It should be noted that the proposed byelaws would affect only about 15% of anglers…

• Erroneous and misleading statement
• The future of angling on Wales Rivers is at risk – without a fishing club, an angler can invariably not fish.

698      It is only reasonable therefore that anglers and nets men play their part in the solution.

• NRW and the report are highly disingenuous to the part the angling community already play in instigating sustainable practices.
• The CPWF proposals for a workable way forward have been given little if any coverage within the report. Anglers aspired way forwards is thus supressed and ousted from consideration.
• Anglers are a critical component of a progressive means of developing improvement in fisheries – the PI and the report confound the alienation of the angling community from this arena.
• There has been no attempt by NRW to reach a point of consensus.

————————————————————End of Document———————————————————