The Angling Trusts CEO Mark Lloyd, who was subject to considerable pressure during his presentation at the hearing was asked why the Angling Trust had not represented all speaking on on behalf of anglers, particularly, why he had not provided a barrister as had NRW, his response was as follows.

“It is preposterous of NRW’s legal counsel to suggest that the Angling Trust and/or Fish Legal could have met the costs of paying a barrister and supporting legal costs for the duration of the inquiry and all the preparatory work that would have been required.  This would have cost us hundreds of thousands of pounds against a budget of £70,000 for legal counsel for the whole year and we would have had no opportunity to reclaim costs from the other side as Fish Legal does in our civil litigation cases on behalf of member clubs and fisheries.  Fish Legal’s small team of lawyers is very busy in its principal role fighting pollution and other environmental threats to fish stocks and angling, often because NRW has failed to do its job properly regulating and prosecuting polluters.”

Well put Mark and our grateful thanks for all your efforts in this regard

President Allan Cuthbert 7 Norton Avenue Prestatyn Denbighshire LL19 7NL   Email: 1highplains@gmail.com

Strategy Officer John Eardley c/o Vanner Farm & Caravan Site  Llanelltyd  Dolgellau  Gwynedd  LL40 2HE Email: johneardley@btinternet.com

Conservation Officer Chris White  57 Normanby Drive Connahs Quay Flintshire CH5 4JX   Email:chriswhite.cohite@gmail.com

6 March 2019

THE WALES ROD AND LINE (SALMON AND SEA TROUT) BYELAWS 2017

THE WALES NET FISHING (SALMON AND SEA TROUT) BYELAWS 2017

Closing Statement

Chris White on behalf of the Campaign for the Protection of Welsh Fisheries

1. The Campaign for the Protection of Welsh Fisheries (CPWF) is a voluntary organisation supporting grass roots anglers across Wales who would have found it difficult to present at the inquiry but wanted their voices to be heard.  In recognition of this CPWF has represented 21 angling clubs, riparian owners and organisations from across Wales at the inquiry.  These organisations have given their permission for CPWF to represent them and have been involved in the preparation of the CPWF evidence.  
2. To a lay person the technical case for the byelaw presented by NRW is compelling as noted in the evidence paper^[1] submitted by Mr Tony Harrington representing Dwr Cymru (Welsh Water) and declared as a supporter for the NRW proposals in which he says “The evidence presented by Natural Resources Wales in relation to the decline of salmon stocks is both comprehensive and compelling”. To those with little knowledge of migratory fish, and the issues which have resulted in their decline, the proposals appear to be proportionate; however, there is no evidence that the byelaws in themselves will reverse this decline.  
3. The evidence presented by objectors has demonstrated their willingness to support voluntary measures and in presenting their evidence objectors have explained how clubs impose rules upon their members in order to conserve fish stocks which are far more effective than byelaws.   These rules apply to individual sections of a river and reflect the present byelaws for that river system, that is byelaws which have been agreed over years with the agency at that time.
4. The basis of the NRW evidence, such that it is, in the Technical Case relies upon the methodology and statistical techniques used to estimate the Conservation Limit (CL) for each river system.   This methodology was originally developed on the River Bush in Northern Ireland, a river which has 100% entrapment of returning adults and migrating smolts and has known water quality and carrying capacity i.e. input parameters are known quantities.  The developer of the statistical model (now deceased) states in the original published paper that the model may not be transportable as it had been developed against known, quantifiable, parameters based on a single river system.  
5. In the CPWF evidence^[2] I refer to extracts from technical papers (W64 and W65) commissioned by the Environment Agency in 1997 which clearly identifies the flaws in a methodology developed for a single river system with known parameters, the river Bush in this case.  Most significant is the assumption of water quality which is pristine and marine survival as a known quantity both of which have a significant effect on the error generated by this methodology.  The subsequent plotting of a regression curve of egg deposition based upon input data which has been shown in our evidence to be flawed puts severe doubt on NRW claiming this as the basis for the proposed byelaws as it shows most rivers as being ‘At Risk’ or ‘Probably at Risk’ of failing to meet their CL in five years’ time.  Forward projection of this regression line is the basis of the NRW Technical case and historically this has been found to be unreliable. 
6. CPWF analysis^[3] of the accuracy of NRW 5 year forward stock status

“predictions” (predictions for the plotted regression line) of Welsh rivers based upon angler catch returns in the four years from 2013 to 2016 shows inaccuracy in catch returns, with only: 41% correct in 2013, 41% correct in 2014, 27% correct in 2015, and 18% correct 2016.  

• The flaws and subsequent inaccuracy of the present CL model is recognised by NRW and in their rebuttal evidence documents^[4] NRW provides a link to a research paper: the ICES Journal of Marine Science, Volume 73, Issue 6, 1 June 2016, Pages 1513–1524 which describes a more accurate methodology for predicting conservation limits (CL).  This paper was first published in March 2016 and was therefore available to NRW prior to the presentation to the NRW Board in January 2018.  Had this revised methodology been presented to the NRW Board in January 2018 it may have persuaded the Board to defer their decision until the revised methodology had been tested.   NRW has recognised a need to review the CL methodology and state that they will be working with the EA and CEFAS on a revised methodology and will review the situation in 5 years once a new methodology is adopted.
• Counsel for NRW went out of their way to disrupt Mr Ashwin’s evidence claiming that in trying to describe a very complicated statistical model Mr Ashwin was introducing new evidence.  In the same vein the NRW Counsel complained that the Drs O’Hagan and Fop the Dublin consultants independent assessment of the methodology was inadmissible as Mr Ashwin could not provide an engagement letter which clearly advised Drs O’Hagan and Fop that the present CL regression line was based upon Bayesian methodology.  
• In his oral evidence Mr Barry, a statistician employed by CEFAS, explained that differences in the statistical methodology was just an argument between academics on the most appropriate method and that he personally supported

the present model.  In the O’Hagan and Fop paper^[5] they recommend the use of a time-based methodology and in the link to the revised methodology^[6] much of what O’Hagan and Fop advocated has been applied. This revised methodology also includes the use of the Monte Carlo simulation used to model the probability of different outcomes in a process that cannot easily be predicted due to the intervention of random variables.  Due to the random variables used in the present methodology NRW plot a graph as a ‘best fit’ based upon a theoretical curve known as a Ricker curve.  This best fit is simply an educated guess which is no basis to introduce legislation let alone use this as an excuse to hide behind a ‘precautionary approach’.

1. In simple terms the present statistical model is flawed i.e. rubbish-in = rubbishout. This is primarily due to input variables based upon uncertain data with reliance on the assumption that water quality is pristine and that angler rod catch returns are accurate.  The present methodology takes no account of variables such as flood events, pollution, and predation and assumes a split between 1 Sea Winter (1SW) and Multi Sea Winter (MSW) salmon which due to changes in the marine environment is no longer valid.  In his proof of evidence Mr Davidson^[7] identifies the shift in run composition from 1SW to MSW salmon and yet this is not, at this time, factored into the calculation of the CL i.e. more eggs are being deposited due to greater numbers of MSW fish returning to our rivers.
2. The river Dee is a highly modified water course due to the river being used as a conduit to transport water from the Celyn reservoir to pumping stations. The Dee is used as an index river^[8] and as such assessments of CL and smolt output are used as benchmarks for other rivers in Wales.  Any errors in the Dee assessment are therefore replicated in all Welsh rivers, Mr Ashwin for CPWF covers this issue in his closing statement.
3. In the proof of evidence from Mr Gough^[9] it is recognised that many migratory fish stocks have been in decline for the past decade (this is not disputed by CPWF) this is despite the response from anglers who have increasingly voluntarily returned the salmon they catch^[10].  It should be noted that whilst anglers have responded over the past decade there has been little or no response from NRW or its predecessor agencies in identifying and taking positive action to reverse this decline i.e. NRW and its predecessor agencies have failed in their statutory duty to ‘maintain fisheries’, there has only been reliance on anglers taking action.  NRW now leans heavily on a precautionary approach due to their lack of objective evidence in an attempt to cover up their failings in maintaining fisheries whilst accepting that angler exploitation is not the issue.
4. In his proof of evidence Mr Gough states that logic indicates that if more fish are saved it will lead to increased spawning resource, leading to the production of greater numbers of juvenile fish.  Whilst this appears to be a logical argument it is not supported by evidence.  
5. In the NRW evidence^[11] there is a table showing the exploitation rate and catch return rate on the Dee between 1992 and 2017.  This table as with several others in the NRW evidence is misleading as the exploitation rate is based upon declared catch returns (fish caught by anglers) and not the exploitation based upon the estimated number of salmon which enter the river.  Recreational angling is not an efficient method of catching migratory fish.  It is estimated that anglers catch between 10% and 15% of salmon which enter our rivers, Mr Davidson (NRW) estimated that this can be as high as 20% in some years.  In my evidence I produced slides^[12] to illustrate the core issues, in slide 5 I used data from an NRW spreadsheet showing salmon catch rates during 2016.  From this slide it can be shown that in 2016 the exploitation by anglers assuming anglers catching 15% (the average is more likely 12%) of the total number of salmon which enter Welsh rivers equates to an exploitation of 3% (only 50% of these would be hen fish). In his oral presentation Dr Mawle suggested that exploitation is between 3% and 4% on the river Usk.    On an individual river basis, using the 2016 data, the exploitation rate for each river varies between 1% and 8% i.e. there are more than enough fish surviving to spawn and it is the in-river losses which must be addressed. Whilst anglers can and do assist by voluntary measures in this process, they are not the prime cause of the decline, this is acknowledged by both NRW^[13] and CEFAS^[14].  I refer you to Fig 1 ‘From Egg to Sea and Back’ in the CPWF evidence (page 7) which demonstrates where the major losses occur. 
6. Tackling in-river losses which NRW has clearly identified as a major problem would have a far greater effect in reversing the decline in fish stocks.  In her evidence^[15] Ms Jenkins claims the ‘All Wales Byelaws’ are intended to preserve vital breeding resources whilst other matters suppressing environmental quality are addressed.  Exploitation of 3% of the spawning stock by anglers is hardly excessive and unlikely to deplete the ‘vital breeding resources’ as at best anglers catch only 15% of returning adults i.e. there are 85% of the ‘vital resource’ untouched.
7. In her evidence Ms Jenkins held up one of NRW’s evidence documents and I commented that over the past 20 years we have seen many glossy brochures but little or no action.  In her response Ms Jenkins confirmed that actions could only be undertaken given funding and resource from the Welsh Government.  In my cross examination in response to Ms Jenkins introducing recreation and access I asked if under the precautionary approach restrictions would be applied to adventure activity on rivers due to the continual disturbance of spawning fish which has a significant impact on recruitment of juveniles.  I included this in the CPWF evidence^[16] as I have been trying to get NRW and its predecessor agency (EA(W)) to protect spawning fish for more than 10 years.  The damage done by disturbance of fish on their spawning grounds has a far greater impact on recruitment than angler exploitation, an issue I addressed at a meeting with the head of inland fisheries for the WG in 2014.  Instead of protecting spawning

sites NRW positively encourages such disturbance due to the inaccurate advice provided on the NRW website.  This advice is based upon the river Wye and is not acceptable on the much smaller spawning streams in North Wales.  There is a perception that the byelaws are more about driving anglers from the whitewater rivers in North Wales to enable greater use by adventure activity companies irrespective of the impact on recruitment of migratory fish.  Should the byelaws be applied against anglers I will insist that under the precautionary approach these are extended to all invasive activity on rivers where migratory fish spawn between November and the end of January the following year.

1. In the evidence from Mr Vaughan^[17] he identifies quite clearly the land management areas which need to be addressed and that the Welsh Government (WG) intends to introduce legislation to address this.  Any legislation via WG will not be until 2020 at the earliest and, even then, there will be a phased implementation.  If as is continually expressed the byelaws respect the ‘precautionary approach’ why is it that agricultural pollution which causes so much damage to the aquatic environment has not been address over the past 20 years? This is despite angling organisations identifying this as a root cause of the decline in fish stocks during this time period.  It seems that it is convenient to use the precautionary approach as an excuse to impose legislation to cover up for the inaction of NRW and its predecessor agencies in addressing the decline in migratory fish stocks for the past 20 years.  
2. Several times in questioning objectors Sir you referred to a suite of proposed legislation by the Welsh Government which you claimed was to support the byelaw proposals, there is no evidence to support your belief that these proposals are designed to support the byelaws it is just a happy coincidence that they may do.  In your questioning of Dr Marsh-Smith you asked if he was aware of the proposals in Mr Vaughan’s evidence, to which Dr Marsh-Smith replied that the proposed suite of measures was simply ‘aspirational’ and it remains to be seen if these promises are fulfilled.  There is no doubt that reducing agricultural pollution through selective land management legislation will potentially improve recruitment of migratory fish but there is still a long way to go before this is applied and even longer for it to become effective.  This is not a justification to apply a precautionary approach exclusively against anglers who have the least impact on fish stocks.  Put simply anglers are just an ‘easy target’.
3. Whilst my preference is to voluntarily return all of my salmon, in my oral evidence I explained this is not always possible due to damage or stress when landing a fish resulting in mortality.   Those who voluntarily practice C&R do so with great care to avoid unnecessary harm, the same level of care may not be applied by those forced by legislation to return their fish. Returning a dead fish to the river does nothing to improve the spawning stock.  If it can be irrefutably demonstrated that salmon stocks in a river are on the point of extinction, then rivers should be closed to all salmon fishing although considerable resources would be needed to protect such rivers from poachers.  In cross examination of both Mr Gough and Mr Russell they were both asked if salmon stocks in any river in Wales were on the point of extinction, the answer by both individuals was they were not aware of any river in which salmon were on the point of extinction. They simply point to the CL regression line which predicts that this may happen.  
4. Mr Barry for CEFAS in his oral evidence used a flip chart to demonstrate the logic behind the precautionary approach whilst accepting that the statistical predictions may not be correct, but it is better to err on the cautious side.  The problem with this approach is the resulting unnecessary economic impact of taking such a course of action.  Each river system is unique and should be assessed at a local level taking all variables into account i.e. droughts/floods/avian predation etc, all of which have a significant impact on migratory fish stocks.
5. In his proof of evidence^[18] Mr Gough identifies that improvements to habitat quality would be more effective if there are improving numbers of spawning fish to take advantage of this.  Full statutory C&R fishing for salmon and sea trout at all times has been in place on the rivers Taff and Wye for the past 7 years with little or no recovery in migratory fish stocks.  There is no evidence that the proposed byelaws will result in the reversal of the decline.   Improvements on the Wye are primarily due to habitat improvements and barrier removal.  
6. In cross examination of Dr Marsh-Smith^[19] by Mr John (an objector) about barrier removal on one of the lower tributaries of the Wye and its effectiveness Dr Marsh-Smith replied that in the first year 5 redds were observed above the barrier which had been removed and year on year more redds had been seen.  A maximum of 33 redds had been recorded on the newly available spawning areas and yet the Wye is still classed as ‘Probably at Risk’ but is predicted to be

‘Not at Risk’ within the next 5 years based upon forward projection of the regression curve.  As well as C&R restrictions the Wye imposed bait restrictions yet neither has resulted in a marked improvement in reversing the decline in migratory fish stocks over the past 20 years and any marginal improvement is more likely to be due to habitat improvement and barrier removal.  The Wye as with other rivers in Wales suffers from agricultural pollution and siltation.  

• In his evidence Mr Gough states that despite these C&R controls, certain components of salmon stocks and some sea trout have continued to decline i.e. there is no evidence of their effectiveness.  Challenges on the effectiveness of C&R and method restrictions typically elicits the following response from NRW “we don’t know how much worse it would have been if the restrictions had not been applied”, this is merely opinion and not evidence. 
• It is the decline^[20] in the 1SW salmon (grilse) which has skewed the CL on most rivers as many electro fishing sites are predominately those used by 1SW salmon.  The effect of barrier removal above some of the electro fishing reference sites has not been factored in i.e. migratory fish will travel further up the spawning streams once the barriers have been removed making their original spawning sites underused.  Tackling in-river losses, which NRW has clearly identified as a major problem, would have a far greater effect in reversing the decline in fish stocks. 
• In his proof of evidence Mr Gough concludes that based upon increase in numbers of MSW fish that this provides evidence of the efficacy of C&R and method restrictions.  After 20 years of compulsory C&R under the National

Salmon Regulations, if this was the case, our rivers would not be declared as

‘At Risk’, there is therefore no quantifiable evidence to support this opinion. Mr Gough frequently responded in his oral evidence with the statement ‘We believe’, belief is not evidence it is simply opinion.

• Whilst there has been an increase in MSW salmon, the reasons behind this are unclear and complex.  I included in my evidence (Slide 18 & Page 27 of my proof of evidence) a graph taken from a presentation by Dr Nigel Milner which shows the variability of salmon catches across 7 North Wales rivers and I postulate that this graph shows the effect of the Irish Drift nets on the decline in salmon numbers in Welsh rivers.  In cross examination of Mr Russell, I asked if removal of in-river nets would have any effect on the numbers of fish available to spawn, he agreed that removal of in-river nets would have an effect.  I then asked why with the nets removed on both the Clwyd and the Dee there had been no improvement in rod catch or for that matter an improvement in the CL.  There was no answer to this.  The Dee historically supported at least 21 netsmen who killed all of the salmon they caught.  At that time anglers would also kill everything they caught and yet the river could support this level of exploitation.  The reasons for the continuing decline in migratory fish stocks have been recognised in the evidence present by NRW and yet, at this time, these issues are not being addressed just more glossy brochures with empty promises.  
• The byelaws will have no effect in reversing the decline even if the root causes of the decline are addressed.  There is however clear evidence that anglers have responded through voluntary measures which can be further improved upon with co-operation.  NRW are aware of where anglers are not meeting the required 90% release rate.  Rather than invest a fraction of the cost of this inquiry in education and co-operation NRW has chosen a confrontational path and, following the consultation, has ignored the objections and pursued the NRW preferred option in the full and certain knowledge that it will not achieve the desired objective.   
• In his evidence Mr Randles^[21] a netsman who used to operate on the Dee and now operates a licence on the Conwy explains that he had negotiated in the year 2000 with the Dee Fisheries Association for the removal of 21 nets from the river Dee, these nets have not operated since 2008 following a 10 year net limitation order which was extended for a further 10 years in 2018.  Despite the removal of these commercial nets on the Dee there has been no noticeable improvement in the numbers of returning salmon.  There has similarly been no recovery on the Clwyd following the buy-out of nets by the Federation of Clwyd Anglers some 10 years earlier than the Dee. Whilst the Dee as a cross border river is outside the scope of these byelaw proposals (at this time) the evidence from Mr Randles demonstrates that removal of nets has minimal effect on the recovery of fish stocks.  
• In my cross examination of Mr Russell I asked if the improvements in MSW fish returning to Welsh rivers was linked to the cessation of the Irish drift net fishery,

in response Mr Russell replied that the Irish drift nets mainly caught grilse (1SW fish), whilst this may be true for Irish estuarial drift nets, this may not be the case for Irish high seas drift nets.  The return of reward tags by Irish netsmen taken from salmon which had been tagged at the Maerdy hatchery in North Wales clearly identifies that salmon bound for Welsh rivers were being caught off the coast of Ireland for a period of approximately 20 years.  The exploitation of these salmon coincides with the start of the steep decline in salmon numbers in Welsh rivers.  

• There is no evidence that every river in Wales is in serious or similar decline.  The use of the regression line (based on estimated egg deposition) to predict a 5 year forward stock assessment has been demonstrated to be flawed.  The survival strategy of salmon accounts for poor spawning conditions and adverse weather events in that parr stay in their spawning streams for 1, 2 or 3 years, similarly adults stay for 1, 2 and 3 winters at sea i.e. there are always adults at sea to maintain the species.  This strategy results in the variability of angler catches as shown in the graph from Dr Nigel Milner used in my evidence.  Given pristine rivers and lower predation salmon stocks could recover quickly.
• Rivers must be assessed individually as no two rivers are the same.  At the moment there are 10 regional sets of byelaws with rivers having different start and finish dates for fishing^[22].  In addition, there are further restrictions which recognise that each river is unique.  Angling clubs and riparian owners recognise these local byelaws and differences in the rules they impose on anglers fishing their waters.  It was claimed by Mr Gough that by introducing an ‘all Wales’ byelaw it would simplify the understanding by anglers as there would be a single set of rules across Wales but this is unconnected to salmon conservation.  Local anglers fully understand the byelaws they have to comply with and the membership of their clubs re-enforce these byelaws in the club rules.  
• There was some confusion by counsel representing NRW as under cross examination of Mr Woodford, who explained that the fry and parr counts on the Afon Ogwen in 2018 were the highest on record, only to be told that fry and parr counts are not part of the CL assessment.  Whilst this is true in terms of egg deposition, fry and parr counts are used to assess the success of spawning and this is a core part of the NRW Technical case based on the flood damage in 2015 and the poor fry and parr counts in 2016 which could lead to a lack of fish in 2020.  In cross examination of Mr Renwick, Mr Wald for NRW, asked if he was aware that the CL is based upon data from traps, counters and fry and parr counts which contradicts his previous comments.  The high fry and parr counts in 2017 and 2018 indicates that whilst there may be a reduction of adults returning in 2020 this is just a transient as reflected in the graph by Dr Nigel Milner.
• The objective of the byelaw proposals is to reverse the decline in migratory fish stocks or, as Ms Jenkins says in her evidence,^[23] to “preserve vital breeding resources whilst other matters suppressing environmental quality are addressed”.  Even if anglers killed all of the salmon they catch there would still be 85% of the total run of fish available to spawn based upon anglers only catching as much as 15% of the salmon which enter a river, the likelihood is that it is less.  NRW accept that anglers are not the problem.  Therefore, it appears the only justification for imposing these draconian measures against anglers is so that NRW can be seen to be doing something using the precautionary approach as an excuse, and to distract from the fact that NRW and its predecessor agencies have failed in their statutory duties to maintain migratory fish stocks for more than 20 years.  As Ms Jenkins eludes, this is just a stop gap measure “whilst other matters suppressing environmental quality are addressed”.  These “other matters” have been known to NRW and its predecessor agencies for more than 20 years and yet it is only now that they propose to take any action to address the root cause following a complaint to the EU by Afonydd Cymru i.e. the WG proposals are not in support of the proposed byelaws as they postdate the NRW 2015 Technical Case, it is simply convenient to claim they are in support of the proposals.
• It is possible to restock rivers which have been affected by pollution events or flood damage.  The argument against stocking is due to the theory that this dilutes the gene pool.  There are very few, if any, rivers in Wales which have not been stocked with fish from other rivers.  In addition, salmon and sea trout frequently wander between river systems, radio tracking and tagging demonstrates this with one fish from a Canadian hatchery reportedly caught in the River Tyne and it is this characteristic that has repopulated rivers like the Taff and Mersey.  Whilst it is true to say that fish adapt to their environment there are many research papers which show that within three spawning cycles the off-spring have adapted to their river conditions.  Those that don’t will then fail to spawn.
• In their evidence^[24] NRW refers to regulations in other UK jurisdictions, what this Annex fails to describe is that in Scotland rivers are reviewed and assessed on an annual basis, working with riparian owners and Local Fishery Boards to ensure that accurate catch returns are recorded.  This enables rapid response to changes in stock status.  NRW has rejected working closely with local angling clubs in favour of heavy-handed legislation using the precautionary approach as an excuse.  Working with local anglers would arguably achieve an equal or better outcome than legislation that is unenforceable due to lack of resource.
• In Mr Gough’s rebuttal evidence^[25] with reference to enforcement he includes a histogram which indicates the decline in reported incidents of poaching; this graph was part of a presentation by the head of enforcement at the fisheries forum in October 2018.  In my evidence I included a second slide from the presentation by the head of enforcement for NRW (slide 37 in my presentation) and drew attention to the black triangles which show reports which are considered, according to the legend, to be ‘Not Significant’.  Each of those black triangles on the Conwy system is a report of poaching activity, poachers on the Conwy and other North Wales rivers kill far more salmon than all the anglers who fish the Conwy and yet according to NRW these incidents are not considered as significant.  Therefore few anglers report poaching incidents as there is rarely any response and, even if there is, it is an after-event response i.e. after the poachers have removed the salmon or sea trout.  NRW has said in its NASCO assessment that if the byelaws are implemented they will make enforcement of byelaws a priority, damage from poachers on the other hand are apparently treated as insignificant.
• Potentially the quickest way to reverse the decline in migratory fish stocks would be to control avian predation and, whilst this is touched upon in the NRW

Technical Case,^[26] there is no estimate given on the losses to fish eating birds (FEB’s).  On the Conwy system, based upon a count of FEB’s (Goosanders) over one year i.e. January to December, we estimate that we lose approximately 50,000 parr/smolt per year based on each of the FEBs eating 440gm of fish per day.  In his proof of evidence Mr Renwick^[27] on Page 5 asks ‘where is the test bed river’? This is something I had explored some 10 years ago with the previous agency (EA(W)) local fisheries management team as in research from a Canadian East Coast river there was clear evidence that controlling FEBs made a significant improvement to the numbers of returning adults by enabling more smolts to reach the sea.  Fish stocks cannot recover where there is excessive exploitation by FEBs i.e. increasing recruitment of juvenile fish without effective FEB controls in place will just see more FEBs on the river as there will be a greater food source.

• In my evidence I refer to the test for proportionality under UK Administrative Law^[28] before byelaws are approved.  It is clear from the evidence presented to the inquiry that the imposition of the byelaws will not achieve the objective of reversing the decline in migratory fish stocks, even if the proposed WG legislation on land management is enacted and, even if enacted, this proposed land management legislation will not be for several years. If a precautionary approach is to be implemented against anglers then the same should be applied to agricultural pollution.
• By pursuing legislation NRW has dismissed working with its stakeholders who have repeatedly demonstrated that they are willing to adopt effective voluntary measures.  It is interesting to read the sanitised minutes for Local Fishery Groups (LFG) meetings.  The sanitising of these minutes means that they are not a true reflection of what has been said at the meeting i.e. much of the, at times vociferous, criticism of the NRW has been filtered out.  In my presentation slides (slide 15) I included a copy of the minutes for the Dee LFG and you will see that by voluntary measures Corwen & District Anglers went from 48% C&R in 2011 to 94% in 2017, my own club varies between 98% and 100% C&R the variation being due to fish mortality and not the deliberate taking of fish.  The days when the majority salmon anglers kill everything they catch is very much a thing of the past.
• Both Mr Eardley and I are members of the Clwyd, Conwy & Gwynedd Rivers Trust (Mr Eardley is Secretary.  I am vice Chairman and Treasurer).  The project work we undertake and the funding we receive for these projects are subject to match funding and to achieve this we rely heavily on voluntary labour which is mainly from angling clubs and riparian owners.  It remains to be seen what happens if these draconian measures are implemented but the general feeling of stakeholders is, they will not in the future carry out work which they consider NRW should be doing.
• In cross examination of Mr Nicholson, he was asked by Mr Wald where the reference to Mr Russell (CEFAS) stated that he had taken the evidence on ‘face value’.  This can be found in NRW/4b Appendix 1 Page 1 last paragraph which says “However, these documents largely contained tables and figures (N.B. I have taken the raw data provided in these documents at face value), so the few comments I have on these documents have also been listed below”.  It was therefore clear that Mr Russell had not challenged the accuracy of the data he was provided.
• In the oral presentation from the netsmen they supported the fact that the decline in fish stocks has been due to poaching, pollution and predation with in their opinion the greatest effect being due to pollution.  There was also reference to effect of the Irish high seas netting as identified in the graph from Dr Nigel Milner and that they were now seeing more MSW fish.
• There is an opportunity to work co-operatively with NRW as we have extremely good relations with our local NRW fisheries officers.  Mr Eardley has covered how this would work in his closing statement which I fully support.
• It only remains for me to thank the inspector for the patience shown due our lack of understanding in how an inquiry of this type is run.

Chris White

Conservation Officer: Campaign for the protection of Welsh fisheries

6 March 2018

---

[1] Ref WW/1

CPWF has the support of freshwater and sea anglers in Wales.

Visit our website at www.cpwf.co.uk

[2] Ref CPWF/2 (pages 29 & 30)

[3] Ref CPWF/2 (page 18)

[4] Ref NRW/2R/C

[5] CPWF/2 Pages 50 to 56

[6] Ref NRW/2R/C

[7] NRW/2 page 13 Para 3.21 & 3.22

[8] CPWF/2 Page 13

[9] Ref NRW/1 9.13, 9.14, 9.24, 9.25, 9.26

[10] CPWF/2 page 25

[11] NRW/8C

[12] CPWF/INQ/5

[13] NRW/4 Page 11 P 5.8

[14] NRW/4b Appendix1 Par 7

[15] NRW/5 Par 2.3

[16] CPWF/2 Enforcement Page 38

[17] NRW/6

[18] Ref NRW/1 9.13, 9.14, 9.24, 9.25, 9.26

[19] AAC/2

[20] App/4 Technical case P18 Para 4

[21] TR/INQ/1

[22] APP/4.7

[23] NRW/5 

[24] APP/4.8 Annex 8 Par 1.2

[25] NRW/1R Fig 5 Page 13

[26] APP/4 Page 77 Para 5.6

[27] AR/1

[28] CPWF/2 Page 6

Sorry that the site has been out of action for some time now, it was due to a technical glitch. We are now back, and over the next day or so we will add to this site information to bring you up to date with the efforts of the Campaign team representing anglers at the Planning Enquiry considering the proposed changes to game angling bye laws

CAMPAIGN FOR THE PROTECTION OF WELSH FISHERIES

 

Contents

Executive summary. 2

Who we are. 2

Assessment of threats and impacts to stocks. 2

Objections to NRW technical Conservation case for byelaw measures. 4

Options for sustainable management 4

Socio and economic considerations. 5

Imposing discriminatory Method restrictions on Fisheries. 5

Conclusions & Recommendations. 6

 

Executive summary

Who we are

The Campaign for the Protection of Welsh Fisheries (CPWF) is a voluntary organisation supported by angling organisations from across Wales.  We are a self funded voluntary organisation with considerable experience in managing fisheries, we have worked alongside several noted fisheries scientists over the past few years whilst carrying out fish surveys on behalf of rivers trusts, we know and understand our own rivers, each is unique, there is not a one size fits all solution which will resolve the decline in migratory fish stocks.  Our primary concern is the protection of fisheries and conservation of migratory fish.

Assessment of threats and impacts to stocks

We noted in the papers submitted to the NRW Board in 2018 with respect to the proposed byelaws for the cross border river Dee the statement below.  This statement is an acceptance that NRW is slow to respond and is resource constrained.  The proposed byelaws appear to be a stop gap in order to buy more time and rely upon the poor recruitment in 2015/2016 as a justification to impose restrictions on anglers despite the knowledge that the poor recruitment was due to adverse weather conditions and that anglers are not the root cause of the decline in migratory fish stocks.  This is what was said:

“Our ability to assess stocks and implement measures in response to declining abundance is resource-intense, as well as being slow to respond in a timely manner. We need a system that allows us to assess and respond to changes in stock abundance more quickly.

We note more prompt action is now taken in other jurisdictions (notably Scotland and Ireland), and we have committed to ongoing work with the EA and Cefas to design and implement a new annual assessment and response cycle by the time of a 5-year review. We reiterate that commitment here.”

“Resource constraints in both NRW and WG restrict our ability to move more quickly towards resolution. However, this matter is recognised by both organisations as a very high priority.”

The above statement demonstrates the uncertainty of the NRW Technical Case and that the proposals are simply a stop gap in order to devise a more accurate and effective way of assessing migratory fish stocks.  Imposing legislation rather than working with stakeholders who NRW accepts know their own rivers best river beggars belief.

The Technical Case document produced by NRW contains 150 pages with eight supporting Annexe papers and is a comprehensive amalgam of arguments to support the NRW Option 2 byelaw proposals, but has fundamental flaws and weaknesses in its interpretation and presentation of critical core data for stocks and their condition status.  CPWF maintain this is not the only option and that other options dismissed by NRW present a better long term strategy for sustainable migratory stocks whilst maintaining important socio and economic considerations and perhaps more importantly engage with stakeholders who care about their rivers.

An actual impact assessment to life cycle phases is absent in the NRW Technical Case which should demonstrate and prioritise a targeted strategy for addressing the greater manageable impacts and threats to stocks.

We have produced a simplified diagram below which demonstrates that the greatest losses are due to mortality from egg to fry to parr and more significantly the loss of migrating smolts to avian predators (goosanders/mergansers/cormorants) before they reach the sea.  Nothing in the NRW proposed byelaws address the areas shown in red.  It is also unclear if the marine losses are based upon the carrying capacity of a river assuming all the smolts reach the sea i.e. for the diagram are the marine losses calculated on 150,000 smolts reaching the sea or 75,000 smolts reaching the sea.  Losses from egg to parr are difficult, and potentially costly to address however losses to avian predators can be easily resolved; instead NRW chooses to target anglers who have the least impact on fish stocks.

 

 

In terms of proportionality in the context of UK Administrative Law:

(a)  the legislative objective is sufficiently important to justify limiting a fundamental right;

(b)  the measures designed to meet the legislative objective are rationally connected to it; and

(c)  the means used to impair the right are no more than is necessary to accomplish the objective.

 

The objective of the byelaw proposals is to reverse the decline in migratory fish stocks and it is clear from the diagram above that angling has the least impact on fish stocks: therefore “the means used to impair the right are no more than is necessary to accomplish the objective” and it is clear that the “means” are disproportionate as the proposals will not achieve the objective, after more than 20 years of catch and release up to 16 June there has been no significant improvement in the spring salmon stocks.

Focusing on the areas in red in the above diagram would have far more effect in reversing the decline in migratory fish stocks.  The objective is to get more smolts to sea and the proposals patently won’t achieve this.  Using the Dee (an index river) as an example 100% catch and release would increase egg deposition by 1.6% above the present voluntary catch and release level.  Smolt trapping on the river Dee by NRW estimated a loss of some 50% from the smolt trap at Worthenbury some six miles above the tide and the smolt trap at Flint in the tidal section just before the fish enter the Irish sea, dealing with the predation by saw billed ducks in the lower river as a short term measure would have a far greater effect on fish stocks.

 

 

Objections to NRW technical Conservation case for byelaw measures

Our objections refer to the following sections in the NRW Technical Case and we detail these objections in our evidence paper:

Section	Topic
2	Assessing and managing stocks of salmon and sea trout in Wales: pages 26 – 38
4	Current Status of Welsh salmon and sea trout stocks: pages 48 – 61
6	Options for sustainable Management  – salmon & sea trout : pages 93 – 98
8	Conclusions: pages137 – 140
Annex 3	Fish & Fishery monitoring data: catchment rod and net catches; juvenile salmon and trout data
Annex 4	Salmon management conservation limits, management targets and “The Decision Structure”
Annex 5	Sea trout (stock recruitment) stock assessment
Annex 8	Management in other jurisdictions

We have covered the detail in the sections after the executive summary.

Options for sustainable management

Government guidelines on byelaws recommends that alternatives should be considered i.e. could the objective be achieved in any other way, short of a byelaw? It is clear from the statement to the NRW Board, highlighted on Page 1, that NRW are only now considering alternatives presumably due to the joint pressure that has been put on the EA and NRW by anglers.  Up to this point NRW has resolutely refused to consider alternatives and have pursued their preferred option, presumably due to resource constraints and personal beliefs.

The proposed regulatory controls when applied in a well-managed fishery provide only a marginal benefit to spawning stocks yet undermine voluntary programmes protecting fish stocks and wider river corridor improvements.  The following table for salmon caught in the river Dee demonstrates the limited increase in numbers of spawning fish should mandatory catch and release be imposed;

 

It is clear from the above table that progress has been made since 2010 with voluntary catch and release; it should be borne in mind that angling is not a particularly efficient method of catching salmon.  It is claimed by NRW that anglers typically catch between 10% and 15% of the total number of salmon in a river system; the estimated catch has a significant effect on the calculation of the conservation limit i.e. yet another variable which skews the results.

The above table shows that 2017 would have seen 39 additional fish that would have survived to spawn and only about half would be female.  Based upon anglers catching 10% of the salmon stock in the river Dee in 2017 there would be 2,080 salmon spawning, so introduction of mandatory catch and release would contribute less than 2% of additional spawning fish.  This is hardly a valid basis for the introduction of additional legislation as it clearly has limited effect.  On many rivers angling effort is now so low that far fewer than 10% of the fish are caught and the potential benefits are further reduced.

Socio and economic considerations

NRW has based its conclusions on the social economic impacts on the river Wye following extensive (and costly) river restoration.  The Wye is unique in Wales with the fishing rights in the main being owned by private estates, this is not the case in most other Welsh regions where local angling clubs either own or rent the fishing rights.  There has been little concern or understanding of the much smaller spate rivers of Wales and the effects of banning bait fishing (worm/shrimp) on these small rivers.  In effect the proposals will render most of the smaller rivers of Wales unsuitable for fishing as they can only be effectively fished with bait.  The proposals in their present form will see many community clubs close as members drop out of their clubs as they can no longer fish due to method restrictions.  To counter this NRW suggests that they will assist clubs in promoting trout and coarse fishing. Other than the rivers Dee and Wye there are no significant coarse fish populations in the majority of Welsh game rivers and there is no shortage of stocked still water trout fisheries.  Members primarily join local clubs to fish for salmon and sea trout as do visiting anglers who also purchase tickets.

Imposing discriminatory Method restrictions on Fisheries

From discussions with NRW it is clear that they have formed their opinion on bait fishing from broodstock collection of salmon from the river Taff.  We have been advised that broodstock caught on worm all died at the Cynrig hatchery and NRW uses this as a basis for their ban on bait fishing.

Prior to the enforced closure of third party stocking in Wales the Mawddach and Conwy stocking programs caught broodstock using various methods including worm and shrimp.  Whilst we had an odd fish each year which died from stress having been removed from their natal river to a hatchery on a strange river this occurred despite the method used.  We experienced fish dying which had been caught using fly/spinner/worm/shrimp, having said this we lost very few fish during our stocking programs.

The impression is that NRW are banning worm fishing based on personal preference using the excuse that some fish which had been removed from the Taff and taken to the Cynrig hatchery on the Usk had died.  We have no information on the numbers of fish or how these fish were caught and handled but it is a convenient excuse to ban bait fishing on the rivers of Wales irrespective of the impact this will have on local community fishing clubs on small spate rivers which are only suitable for bait fishing.

The NRW concession that anglers fishing for sea trout can use a single worm makes no sense if salmon are present this was a last minute concession following a challenge on the effect the ban on bait fishing has on disability discrimination, a CPWF member met with the Welsh Government Cabinet Secretary and raised this issue.  The days of anglers who fish with worm waiting until the salmon has swallowed the worm has long since gone most salmon fishers who fish worm and voluntary return their fish do so with no more harm than any other method.  Following fly fishing the least damaging method of salmon fishing is with shrimp, NRW ban this method claiming that this is only used in low water when oxygen levels are low and as such fish may not recover after being caught.  If this is the case then all fishing in low, warm water, conditions should also be banned, spinning causes far more damage to fish and yet on some rivers this is permitted from the start of the season.

I terms of hook selection a study in North America found that hook selection has little or no influence on fish survival.  The study was based upon the capture of lake trout which were then put into a recovery tank, it made little difference if barbed or debarbed hooks were used or if the hooks were single/double/treble.  The major influence in fish mortality was the length of time a fish was played before landing and the temperature of the water.  During the Scottish Dee radio tracking program where salmon were rod caught and a record kept of the hook size and location of the hook in the fish’s mouth there was no recorded difference in the survival of the fish irrespective of the hook type.

Enforcement of legislation

The proposed legislation, if implemented, will be difficult to police and nearly impossible to enforce.  The NRW enforcement team consists of 16 FTE officers to cover the whole of Wales.  This level of resource is clearly inadequate however furthermore these officers are not dedicated to fisheries work and have other duties to perform i.e. pollution investigation, fly tipping and cockle bed patrols.  The enforcement teams are ‘intelligence lead’, all this means is any incident reported is logged but no action is taken e.g. a report of poachers on a river will be assessed and, as officers are not allowed to work alone if there is more than one poacher, there will be no response.  In terms of tariffs (fines a court can make) a poacher, should they be caught, can be fined up to £250, whereas a licensed angler, should they be caught taking a salmon before the 16 June, can be fined up to £1000.  A poacher may kill many fish but an angler who takes a fish which they could not revive will be treated more harshly simply because they have purchased a rod licence.

NRW has stated that, if legislation is introduced, anglers ‘will do the right thing’ but this is a bit like saying drivers will observe speed limits, some do but many don’t as there is little chance of being caught.  The same will apply to enforcing any legislation by NRW in the misguided attempt to improve fish stocks. The very low number of NRW Enforcement Officers makes the apprehension of offenders unlikely.  Co-operation and not legislation is needed, we all have a common goal sadly the cheapest option for NRW is to legislate.

Conclusions & Recommendations

We have concluded that, in the absence of validation of a quality assured national system, introducing 10 year mandatory byelaws formed on flawed data and current methodology would be open to challenge.

CPWF are quite clear that the Technical Case options for sustainable management have not considered the full range of options open to restore sustainable stocks, both in terms of voluntary options and other enforcing measures (limits/tagging etc) that will secure rod fisheries cooperation for the future management of the fishery.

Instead of working with stakeholders NRW has chosen a route which effectively drives a wedge between themselves and those who own and care for our rivers.  Should these proposals be adopted in their present form, the repercussions for locally run clubs are dire with many being unable to pay their rents to landowners due to loss of membership.   The economic impact on rural communities has been dismissed by NRW who claim that there will only be a temporary decline in fishing effort.  This is appears based on the river Wye, a premier salmon river which has seen many millions invested in an attempt to reverse the decline in salmon stocks, this has only had limited success and could not be replicated on the majority of rivers in Wales.

We have requested the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs to defer any recommendations from the inquiry until 2020 to remove the uncertainty angler’s face in 2019.  To introduce changes after the fishing season commences will have a damaging effect on many local clubs in Wales as members will not rejoin in 2019 if they can no longer fish due to method restrictions.  The indecision in 2018 saw several clubs having difficulty in paying their rents due to reduced membership; the drought of 2018 has seen sales of day tickets from visitors drop causing further financial stress.  There are ways forward without penalising anglers but NRW has chosen to ignore these.  We set out in our paper to demonstrate the flaws in the NRW Technical Case which underpins their proposals.

 

 

 

Contributors:

Chris White                 CPWF

John Eardley:              CPWF

Paul King:                    Vale of Clwyd Angling Club

Reuben Woodford:     Ogwen Valley Angling Association/Penrhyn Fishing Club

Mike Ashwin:              North West Angling Trust Fisheries Consultative Committee

 

Background information

Strategy Officer Mr John Eardley

Email: johneardley@btinternet.com                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     05 September 2018

Dear Mr Eardley,

Many thanks for your letter of the 13 August. You raise a number of concerns in your letter about the proposed approach to fishing byelaws in Wales. In common with some other fisheries groups in Wales, your questions and concerns relate to deeply technical issues. I’ve decided not to respond to those here as I believe these are best dealt with through continuing the regular bilateral meetings and discussions with my fisheries technical staff. I’ve suggested to my staff that they regularly share with you the procedures and approaches we follow which are put in place usually through agreements between WG, DEFRA, CEFAS and EA to ensure we have consistent and robust evidenced based approaches underlying the decisions we all take and in the interest of managing our natural resources sustainably. I’d like to focus my response to you on how we are trying to improve our engagement. I am committed to NRW continuing to work with fisheries stakeholders and improve our engagement, as aside from the catch and releases proposals we’ve put to Welsh Government for affirmation, we have many shared outcomes that I’d hope we can progress together – such as habitat restoration work. To complement the local fisheries groups, that we will continue to support, I know you will be aware that we are setting up an all-Wales Fisheries group with the first meeting to be held at the end of October. Through this forum and with a wider range of stakeholders we aim to build a common understanding of the problems facing fisheries across Wales, the underpinning evidence and technical assessment techniques that we can work on together and the actions we can all take to improve these fisheries. This group can help us establish the strategic direction for our future work. Whilst I’m aware that we might not always be able to reach agreement on all aspects, as we each have very different roles to undertake, I’d like us to be able to work together on achieving mutual understanding and respect for each other’s positions and roles. I am Ein cyf/Our ref: CX18-018 Ty Cambria / Cambria House 29 Heol Casnewydd / 29 Newport Road Caerdydd / Cardiff CF24 0TP / CF24 0TP Ebost/Email: Clare.Pillman@cyfoethnaturiolcymru.gov.uk Clare.Pillman@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk Ffôn/Phone: 0300 065 4453 www.naturalresourceswales.gov.uk www.cyfoethnaturiolcymru.gov.uk Page 2 of 2 though convinced that there will be much that we agree on and that we can work together on. The fisheries group will work through our other stakeholder groups such as the Land and Water Management Fora. The work of these groups in turn feeds into our board and executive team discussions. Future proposals for fisheries management can be discussed at the Wales fisheries group and together with our other stakeholder groups and continuing our regular dialogue will help give me assurance that NRW is engaging with the fisheries sector. I’ve asked Ceri Davies of my Executive Team to meet up with you ahead of the first meeting of the group, so you can feed in your thoughts about the group, how we best engage with you and the sector and share our work. Ceri will be in touch shortly to arrange this meeting. In the meantime, I am pleased to note that Mr White has confirmed he will be attending the first meeting of the new group on behalf of the Campaign for the Protection of Welsh Fisheries. In your letters I can clearly see and feel your passion and commitment to fisheries in Wales. I am also heartened that all of the fisheries staff I have met in my first 6 months working in NRW are equally passionate. I am therefore hopeful that in the coming months we will build a constructive and effective working relationship so that together we can secure the sustainable management of fisheries in Wales that our current and future generations can enjoy.

Yours sincerely Clare Pillman

Prif Weithredwr, Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru

Chief Executive, Natural Resources Wales

Response from NRW Chief to Chris White about NRW fisheries byelaw proposals. Please note NRW documents are in these links because I only have .PDF files. Our letter are in full as I have the word documents. No bias intended.

Letter from NRW CEO

Briefing note on NRW views on need for C&R

C&R briefing note

CAMPAIGN FOR THE PROTECTION OF WELSH FISHERIES                                          30 July 2018

Re: NRW fisheries bylaw proposals

Dear Ms Pillman,

The Campaign for the protection of Welsh fisheries represents, and is supported by, all angling disciplines in Wales and is a major NRW stakeholder, we write on behalf of all Welsh anglers.

At the January 2018 NRW Board meeting held in Bangor the proposed bylaws were presented to the NRW Board for approval.  Although we had requested the opportunity to explain our concerns to board members ahead of any discussion, this was refused and we had to resort to speaking to a few members during the short lunch break, the majority of them subsequently speaking up on our behalf during the ensuing presentation.

When the Board reconvened after the lunch break the Chair (Diane McCrea) announced to the Board that, whilst the Board members may contribute to the discussions on the proposals, there would be no vote and she would have the final say.

The general feeling from the Board members was that further time should be given for the NRW fisheries team to meet with stakeholders and look for alternatives.  It was surprising that, despite the overwhelming feeling of the Board who felt that further discussion with stakeholders should take place, the Chair sided with the management team and approved the bylaw proposals, hardly democracy in action.   However, as a concession it was agreed by the Board that there had been a clear failure to properly engage with stakeholders and immediate steps should be taken to put this right.  We are now six months on and nothing has happened. In fact the NRW fisheries officers made a press statement following the announcement of the deferment of the bylaw proposals until 2019 in which they said “there would be no further debate” and “we are prepared to make ourselves unpopular” when referring to the bylaw proposals. 

The failure of NRW to engage with stakeholders was clearly recognised by the Petitions Committee on 3^rd July during their consideration of two petitions from angling organisations.

The decline in migratory fish stocks is not disputed, this has been ongoing for over 20 years, but little or no effective action has been undertaken by the predecessor agencies to NRW to reverse this decline.  The introduction of the National Salmon Regulation in 1999 made it mandatory for anglers to return all salmon caught prior to 16 June (coupled with method restrictions) for a period of 10 years in order to protect the stock of ‘spring’ salmon.  This measure has been extended for a further 10 years as it has had little or no effect in reducing the decline in salmon but has had a marked effect on the numbers of anglers fishing prior to 16 June.

We now see NRW wanting to extend the National Salmon restrictions beyond 16 June, for a minimum period of 10 years, and to introduce more severe method restrictions on all Welsh rivers.  If introduced, the proposals will inevitably severely impact the number of anglers salmon fishing in Wales.  Several Welsh clubs have already seen their membership decline by 20-25% due to the uncertainty of the effects of the proposed bylaws.   Perhaps more significantly, there has been a decline of up to 75% in volunteers who carry out habitat improvement and maintenance work that is vital to the future survival of our fisheries. This demonstrates that NRW has lost the support of its stakeholders due to its failure to engage with or listen to them.

We have requested meetings with the Cabinet Secretary (Lesley Griffiths) or her Environment Minister (Hannah Blythyn) to put forward voluntary solutions which we believe would be more effective, only to be repeatedly told that she is unable to meet with stakeholders but will keep us informed of progress via NRW. Consequently, we still don’t know what is happening and the damage to our fisheries, and the rural economies which they support, continues.

I note in your blog when you took over as Chief Executive of NRW that you say:

“….To do that we need to take people with us – customers, stakeholders, politicians, decision-makers and the people of Wales.   I look forward to meeting them, hearing their views, and working with them over the coming years to make sure that we hand on the environment of Wales in the best possible condition to our children and grandchildren”.

On behalf of stakeholders I would therefore request a meeting with you in order to present alternatives which, although they potentially deliver better outcomes for both our fish stocks and fisheries, have been consistently rejected by the senior NRW Fisheries Team in their relentless pursuit of legislative approach.

 

Regards

Chris White

Conservation Officer: Campaign for the protection of Welsh fisheries

 

Representing, but not limited to, the following major stakeholders who fish Welsh rivers:

 

Angling Cymru

Betws-y-Coed Fishing Club

Seiont, Gwyrfai and Llyfni Anglers’ Society

OgwenValley Angling Association

Penrhyn Fishing Club

Rhyl & District Anglers

Vale of Clwyd Anglers

Corwen & District Angling Club

Llangollen Maelor Angling Club

Dolgellau Angling Association

Dee Fisheries Association

Federation of Clwyd Anglers

Wye Salmon Association

Bangor on Dee Angling Association

Merthyr Tydfil Angling Association

Crickhowell & District Angling Society

Brecon Angling Society

New Dovey Fishery Association

Prince Albert Angling Society

Wirral Game Fishing Club

CAMPAIGN FOR THE PROTECTION OF WELSH FISHERIES

10 July 2018

Re: NRW fisheries bylaw proposals – Update

Dear Minister,

We note in recent correspondence to both ourselves and various AM’s who are supporting Welsh Anglers that you continually say “I am unable to comment on the proposals at this time” as you are awaiting a response from you officials on the bylaw proposals.

You will undoubtedly be told by NRW that there are only six complainants about the proposed bylaws. The reality is that those six represent all anglers in Wales – we are the Anglers Shop Stewards fighting for the rights of our members.

We commissioned an independent Evaluation Report on the methodology used by both the NRW and EA, the findings in this independent report show that the present river classification system is statistically incorrect, has not been validated since its introduction in 2003 and is deeply flawed.

Our collective view is that the proposed measures and justification set out by the NRW in the Bylaw Consultation conservation case will not reverse the decline in stocks and potentially places salmon and sea trout stocks under greater threat.

Prior to your final decision on the bylaw proposals presented to you by NRW we wish for an opportunity to present our case to you or your Environment Minister for a shared management approach reflecting the important role anglers play in conserving, protecting and enhancing salmon and sea trout stocks. This request is being made as it has become apparent that in making their bylaw recommendations NRW reached the conclusion that none of the reasoned objections to mandatory measures or alternate conservation proposals submitted by anglers in the public consultation were considered as being of sufficient merit to change or amend their original drafted bylaws (The NRW preferred option).  One small consideration has been adopted. However this is more to do with avoidance of disability discrimination, although there still remains a question mark on whether the concessions actually achieve that.

The uncertainties of the introduction of the proposed bylaws are already having an impact on the management and viability of fisheries (reductions in membership and visitor income) and we wish to present our own evidence on the following grounds: –

• The Consultation Conservation case states that 10-year statutory catch and release measures for salmon are necessary to reverse the current threat to stocks at a time when, according to NRW anglers in Wales already voluntarily return 86% of the salmon they catch.  The implication in the NRW case is that anglers are the cause of the decline; this is patently not the truth.
• Anglers, Riparian interests and Rivers Trusts undertake a range of important voluntary fish protection and enhancement programmes. The loss of these critical voluntary programmes is imminent as anglers give up fishing or fish elsewhere. Unviable Clubs, fisheries and Riparian owners will be forced to scale down their activities or close altogether. The NRW are not able to back fill these voluntary programmes and the vacuum left will result in greater loss of juvenile and spawning stock due to increased poaching activity, predation and other river related incidents – pollution etc.
• Anglers have taken a responsible conservation approach, introducing voluntary codes and tagging schemes to meet agreed target catch & release rates in the lead up to the Bylaw review. The C & R rates are at a historic high (appox 90%) and in line with national guidelines.
• The conservation case is based on questionable stock data assumptions and should not be used to implement statutory measures.
• Elements of the proposed Bylaws are not enforceable and would rely heavily on angler’s support.  Recent reorganisation within NRW has further weakened fisheries enforcement who will now only be active from 8am to 5pm, poachers operate at night.
• Little economic or social impact assessment was undertaken with NRW publicly stating there would be a reduction in angling activity.

I would draw your attention to the press statement issued by NRW (Messrs Gough & Mee) following the deferment of proposals in which they say, “there will be no further debate” and that “they were prepared to make themselves unpopular”.  It is clear from these statements that the response from Inland Fisheries/NRW will be for you to support the proposals as published.  The approach in England by the EA is not as draconian as those by NRW with no blanket ban as proposed in Wales i.e. it is easier to blame Welsh anglers than deal with the root cause.  It was agreed at a recent EA meeting (with NRW present) that the way forward for England and the EA was for co-operation with anglers, unlike NRW who prefers to ignore stakeholders.

Our preference is for stakeholder involvement and meaningful discussion, as is happening in England, instead of imposing on Wales the most severe conservation legislation in the whole of the United Kingdom and Ireland.

As Minister we do not expect you to have an in depth knowledge of the issues.  The NRW Fisheries Team has freely acknowledged that anglers know their own rivers better than they do and that alone provides sound basis for our concerns to be heard independently (as recognised at the recent Petitions Committee meeting on 3 July). Your options are therefore to either support your agency and approve their proposals or support anglers, your electorate. To that end we would again request a meeting with either yourself, or your Environment Minister, in order to present our case for a voluntary solution and as a result avoid the need for statutory legislation as a first response.

 

 

Regards

Chris White

Conservation Officer: Campaign for the protection of Welsh fisheries