Fishing The Fly Scotland
Index => Main Discussion Area => Topic started by: Derek Roxborough on 17/02/2016 at 12:07
-
The draft reform bill for Scotlands wild fisheries is on line,this will affect us all and effectively criminalise all anglers who do not have written permission to fish, this will kill off the wild trout fishing in the highlands,also there will be appointments of Jobsworths as either bailiffs or the new designation of fishery warden, write to Your MP/MSP, with your concerns, the Anglers are being held responsible for the demise of the west coast salmon not the Salmon farming industry :z8 easgach 1
-
Read it here .................
https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/wild-fisheries-reform-team/draft-wild-fisheries-strategy/supporting_documents/Wild%20Fisheries%20Reform%20%20Consultation%20document%20%20%208%20February%202016.pdf (https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/wild-fisheries-reform-team/draft-wild-fisheries-strategy/supporting_documents/Wild%20Fisheries%20Reform%20%20Consultation%20document%20%20%208%20February%202016.pdf)
-
Read it, cant reply without politicizing the issue. Sorry.
It is basically the fishery version of "Right to Roam" and "Land Reform Bill".
I believe we will see rivers and lochs forced into an open access, anyone can fish here status. Open access is listed as one of the foundation stones of the Wild Fisheries Reform Bill.
Equally, those waters that are currently free, will become "administered" in some form. That will introduce a cost.
I must question why put and take fisheries and stocked waters seem to be covered by this Bill as well? "The system (national and local functions) will manage fish in our rivers and lochs as well as put-and-take fisheries in still waters."
-
Interesting points Rob ................... :z3
-
As far as I am aware there was no such thing as free fishing for trout in Scotland. , The bottom line was that unless covered by a Protection Order, which made it a criminal offence, unauthorized fishing for trout remains an offence which is subject to civil prosecution. The problem is that unless you know the person fishing illegally, the owner of the fishing does not even have the power to demand, and seek verification of, their name and address. Before the Don was granted Protection Order status bus loads of indiscriminate anglers from the Scottish central belt ravaged the river. If they had only brown trout in their possession , even although an offence had been committed, there was little we could do about it. And they knew this !
As for opening up fishing access to one and all, remember there is an election coming up, and such a move will be worth lots of votes for President Nicola.
-
I don't know where you thought that the fisheries would be open, more Bailiffs /Wardens, criminal charges Local fisheries management organisations, how is that opening up fisheries? according to Lord Joycey after the 1976 Fisheries act Scotland , wild brown trout belong to whoever catches them but access could be trespass, My interpretation of the bill will be more restrictions not less, and I don't feel it has any comparison with the land reform bill ,up to now access to hill lochs has been allowed provided that you respect the privilege, now you will have to carry written permission, and still no mention of salmon farming, I have filled in the online questionnaire and have a letter to my local MP , easgach 1
-
What I liked about Rob's post is that he had obviously tried to find something positive in the paper. I'm guessing that most folk ( myself included ) would simply look for the negatives.
I usually need to read through these things a few times before I can begin to understand them and form an opinion ....... and I'm not there yet :oops
Cheers
Mike
-
Equally, those waters that are currently free, will become "administered" in some form. That will introduce a cost.
A Scottish rod licence maybe :? :!
What I liked about Rob's post is that he had obviously tried to find something positive in the paper. I'm guessing that most folk ( myself included ) would simply look for the negatives.
Fair point well made. By and large though it strikes me that the one thing anglers really believe is that they know better than the politicians and civil servants tasked with creating the reform bill; whilst that is probably true (in most cases :!) it is likely that the proposed bill will yield the usual divided response from anglers in (and out) of Scotland and the owners of fishing - when what they should be doing is speaking under a unified voice.
I'm not necessarily in favour of needless red tape but I'd observe that from an outsiders perspective we may be perceived as not being the best custodians of our resources (let's not get into that right now.....) and if the bill contains a 'real world' way to move forward in the restoration of our wild fisheries then I'll almost certainly support it.
H :cool:
-
What I liked about Rob's post is that he had obviously tried to find something positive in the paper. I'm guessing that most folk ( myself included ) would simply look for the negatives.Mike
Did I??? lol.
-
"The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make provision for the imposition of a levy
on persons specified in subsection (2), to be known as a wild fisheries levy.
(2) The persons are—
(a) in relation to an Atlantic salmon fishery, an owner or occupier of the right to fish
for Atlantic salmon in the fishery,
(b) in relation to any other wild fishery, an owner or occupier of the land to which the
right to fish for freshwater fish (other than Atlantic salmon) in the fishery pertains."
This is worrying. As the SG have placed stocked and put and take fisheries under "Wild fisheries", there is now nothing to stop them imposing a charge on a private owner who manages his own fishery.
The purpose of a wild fisheries levy is to meet or contribute towards expenditure
incurred, or to be incurred, by the Scottish Ministers or Fisheries Management
Organisations—
(a) in promoting—
(i) the conservation of freshwater fish in wild fisheries and their habitats, and
(ii) best practice in the management of wild fisheries,
(b) otherwise in performing functions under this Act or any other enactment relating
to wild fisheries.
So a private fishery may have to pay a levy for a Minister to tell them how to run their fishery or to support other fisheries that may have asked for help.
Maybe I am reading in to thing to much??
Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular—
(a) specify rates of levies, or provide for them to be determined, by reference to such
factors or circumstances as may be specified in or determined under the
regulations,
(b) make provision for the valuation of wild fisheries and for the entering of the
values in the valuation roll,
(c) provide for levies to be imposed on an annual or other recurring basis,
(d) provide for exemptions, discounts, remissions or repayments,
(e) provide for the collection and enforcement of levies,
(f) provide for the charging of interest on overdue levies,
(g) provide for appeals in respect of any matter determined under the regulations,
(h) provide for income from levies to be retained by the Scottish Ministers or
Fisheries Management Organisations,
(i) in relation to income from levies retained by Fisheries Management
Organisations, make provision about—
(i) the particular purposes for which the income may be applied,
(ii) the accounting for the income and the expenditure of the income,
(j) provide for the delegation of functions to a Fisheries Management Organisation in
relation to—
(i) the determination of the rates of levies and their administration, collection
and enforcement, or
(ii) any other matter provided for in the regulations.
I have to ask why a wild fishery would need a "valuation"? Only one reason...tax.
-
And to pay for the New Bailiffs/wardens, very little of the rod licence in England goes back in to the Fisheries, it goes on administration, and I don't see the Scottish version being much different,one of the Questions was should Scottish ministers be able to designate the moneys as they think fit or should the money be solely for the purpose of the fisheries, now what do you think?I can find nothing positive in this interference with the system, at least from my point of view, at the consultation we were told not to refer to historic events,(salmon farming) because they wanted to move forward, this was by a man with no interest in fishing, I can see this being a bone of contention for years to come, :z8 easgach 1
-
And to pay for the New Bailiffs/wardens, very little of the rod licence in England goes back in to the Fisheries, it goes on administration, and
This is a useful reference https://environmentagency.blog.gov.uk/2014/07/17/where-does-your-rod-licence-money-go/ (https://environmentagency.blog.gov.uk/2014/07/17/where-does-your-rod-licence-money-go/)
The EA probably has more anglers to cater for so yes, admin charges will be high, but the work they have recently been doing on re-stocking and fish rearing has been fantastic. I think that this is going to be the falling down bit of a Scottish system, re-stocking.
If all anglers have to pay a rod licence, and if its based on the English system, coarse anglers will have to buy two licenses (as they often use 2 rods) so would expect their money to be used on coarse fish restocking and habitat improvement. But I cannot see this happening.
I think it will actually end up a right mess...although in practice, I support rod licenses and a single organization...but I just don't think it will work in Scotland.
-
I don't know where you thought that the fisheries would be open, more Bailiffs /Wardens, criminal charges Local fisheries management organisations, how is that opening up fisheries? according to Lord Joycey after the 1976 Fisheries act Scotland , wild brown trout belong to whoever catches them but access could be trespass, My interpretation of the bill will be more restrictions not less, and I don't feel it has any comparison with the land reform bill ,up to now access to hill lochs has been allowed provided that you respect the privilege, now you will have to carry written permission, and still no mention of salmon farming, I have filled in the online questionnaire and have a letter to my local MP , easgach 1
And so the free trout fishing debate rumbles on.
In the nineteen eighties and early nineties I did a fair bit of trout fishing in the north of Scotland and encountered plenty of so called "anglers" who were adamant that they had the god given right to fish for trout, in Scotland, for free. Their fishing was mainly carried out with set lines, drowning worms. It also appeared mandatory that you were required to be drinking a can of beer while watching your rod tip. Their empty cans were often left behind at the end of the day.
A few years ago a squad from "The Free Trout Fishing" brigade proclaimed their intention to fish for free on a lower Spey beat. The TV, media, and every other dog's body was there on the day to witness the tartan clad bold heroes march down to the river, rods in hand. After a few casts they were quickly escorted from the water , and nothing was ever reported to the effect that they had been unfairly or unlawfully treated in any way.
Bruce Sandison, the celebrated Scottish angling writer and author, has been doing his best to dispel the free trout fishing myth for many years now. In spite of his considerable influence things do not appear to be getting any better.
As for "trespass", let me put on my old bobbies bonnet and respectfully advise that there is no crime of trespass under Scottish common or statutory law. There was something called the Vagrancy Act which gave the police power to deal with vagrants, vagabonds and other tinks in general. A landowner seeking to keep normal people off his land would need to take out a court injunction ( if granted) to achieve this.
Let us hope that the eventual outcome of the proposed legislation will lead to the same degree of protection for brown trout, as that offered to migratory fish. However I am afraid that this may simply be wishful thinking, since the central belt holds all the trump cards.
-
You can't beat the system in place in New Zealand in my humble opinion :z8
You pay the government for an annual fishing licence, there are strict rules in place to protect the fish and the environment and the government employs people to police those rules.
No beats, no exclusive waters, you simply pay for your annual licence and go fishing.
-
That would be nice Mike ,But there are too many riparian owners (i.e. Lairds)if the land belonged to the people then so would the fishing ,but, it's not and we have to suffer for it, the examples for the bill are supposed to be from abroad, but I think they have been cherry picking the bits that the government liked with out seeing the broader picture. In BC in Canada there are 6 state hatcheries for restocking I wonder how many state hatcheries there are in Scotland? but I already know that answer, I don't know if Howietoun still exists, that was the only one near enough to a State hatchery, this discussion will rumble on , easgach 1
-
The riparian owners could be bought out? ........ on an extended payment plan funded by the licence system.
Those currently employed as ghillies and bailiffs could be offered two choices of employment by the government, firstly as the policing officers, secondly as fishing guides for visitors/tourists on a national guide programme, who could be booked via the government fisheries website or somewhere like the Visit Scotland website.
Improved conservation control, no job losses ( possibly more job opportunities ) and a better system for tourism ....... How's that for a simple radical solution? :z4
-
are you wearing those rose tinted specs of yours, Mike? I cant see this Scottish Government putting out a CPO for all the fishing/ Land , people have been campaigning for years to get Scotland to own its own land, it goes back to 7:84, and with out a serious change of Government it aint going to happen, nice thought though , :z12 easgach 1
-
Nothing wrong with rose tinted specs :z12
-
Indeed, nice spot of rose tinted thinking there Mr B :z12
Too many complications for much of Scotland, but that doesn't mean that some fishings couldn't be managed on the New Zealand model.......
-
and can you actually see that Hamish?, This is in the hands of people who know nothing about angling and I have little faith that they will get it right, what ever that right will be, I am a pessimist so I am never disappointed :z18 easgach 1
-
and can you actually see that Hamish?, This is in the hands of people who know nothing about angling and I have little faith that they will get it right, what ever that right will be, I am a pessimist so I am never disappointed :z18 easgach 1
Funnily enough I am often considered by work colleagues to be a pessimist (I prefer realist :wink) but as I am an angler I must, clearly, be an optimist so yes - whilst I am not naive enough to believe the NZ model would work for all of the fishing in Scotland - I could see a scheme where some of our non-migratory fishings might be managed in a way which we are currently not using in the UK.
-
I would like to see that but I'll not hold my breath, I have fished for over 70 years and I am still a pessimist,as I said I am never disappointed :X2 easgach 1
-
You can't beat the system in place in New Zealand in my humble opinion :z8
You pay the government for an annual fishing licence, there are strict rules in place to protect the fish and the environment and the government employs people to police those rules.
No beats, no exclusive waters, you simply pay for your annual licence and go fishing.
Would it not be fair to say that New Zealand is blessed with a small population and thousands and thousands of miles of shoreline (be it river, or lake)?
4.5 million on 268, 021 kilometers squared of land
Scotland is 6m on 78, 387 km squared...plus an attached neighbor who can opo over and fish without taking flights or ships :)
We just have too many people fishing for such a system to work...I think...along with centralized populations. Imagine the pressure on the Clyde, Tay and Forth for example.
But a really really nice idea :)
-
But a very similar system works in Spain Rob :wink
-
You can't beat the system in place in New Zealand in my humble opinion :z8
You pay the government for an annual fishing licence, there are strict rules in place to protect the fish and the environment and the government employs people to police those rules.
No beats, no exclusive waters, you simply pay for your annual licence and go fishing.
most of France is like this and it works very well. i pay 95€ for an annual license that allows me to fish +/- the whole southern half of the country 365 days a year. (within specific open/closed species reproduction times of course but coarse fish is always open)
-
But a very similar system works in Spain Rob :wink
Ahhhhh, but they speak funny and do not queue at bus stops ;)
-
Funny enough, you are all alluding to a system that is already in operation in the UK, a Rod licence :)
An EA rod licence gives anglers access to a huge number of free fisheries in England and Wales. Some of the money than goes back into re-stocking these free canals, rivers and lakes.
Of course, it does not give access to "owned" fisheries where an additional permit is required.
-
I cant think of a single fishery that is free in the Aberdeen area or Grampian for that matter.
Am confused a little here, So Scotland will eventually be pulled in line with the rest of the UK and Euro with the introduction of a Rod Licence ? So the bases of the Rod licence for the rest of the UK is to open up free fishing in areas where it exists and some of this money goes back to the fisheries ? ye ??
Only place that I think free fishing exists in Scotland is Orkney.
Rod Licence £70
ADAA £210
Local Roaming £232 2016 only, 2017 TBA as the council are letting go,
Day trips on the Dee £50 average, Day trips on the Don £35 average,
New gear £200 average spent
That a hell of a lot of dosh for one year,
With that kind of money I'll being looking to move to Orkney
-
Funny enough, you are all alluding to a system that is already in operation in the UK, a Rod licence :)
Of course, it does not give access to "owned" fisheries where an additional permit is required.
yes and no, Rob. 'owned fisheries' are extremely rare here. the only places i can think of are in Brittany and they're not really worth going to anyhow... :z4
anyhow, in other words, if the spot looks good you stop and fish. period.
there are of course certain areas where fishing is forbiden but it's about fish management (wild nurseries etc) and has nothing to do land ownership. this info is on a map everyone gets when they purchase their license and regs of this type are on waterside signs to make the boundaries clear.
it's a really good system :z16
-
According to the bill there will be no rod licence , but a levy, all the things mentioned would be fine if the fishing wasn't in the hands of the 7% who own the land, 84% of it, the English rod licence pays for the Jobsworths who do the bailiff work, according to guys I know very little goes back into improving the fishing, I would willingly pay for a rod licence , if the fishing was owned by the country, it will be interesting to see how the levy works, I think that the biggest threat to migratory fish is fish farms and they should be made to pay for the protection of the salmon & seatrout , rant over , :z18 easgach 1
-
I'd agree that the single biggest domestic threat to our migratory fish is indeed salmon farming, although successive Scottish governments would arguably have to be the second biggest threat for their impotence in the face of scientific fact about the dangers of salmon farming to our environment.
Now on the subject of a rod licence I have a different view, albeit based on my experiences as a student in 1990 to '93 working part time with the (then) Welsh National Rivers Authority (NRA) as a water bailiff. The NRA system was generally a good - if complicated - organisation that was an evolution of the previous Regional Water Authorities. That included a legacy of positive action in enforcing fisheries legislation matched with a willingness to tackle environment/habitat issues - the logo was a Salmon :!
Now I am not a fan of the EA that replaced the NRA system as much was lost in terms of the local 'flavour' and I'd wholeheartedly agree that the way the EA goes about business today is symptomatic of too many chiefs, not enough Indians and reactionary to government rather than pro-actively environment. That is a shame, but it does not necessarily mean that we in Scotland could not use some of what we have and some of what we might be able to finance (through a levy or licence) based on the NRA model. It could work.
If I knew for certain that my licence or levy fee was paying towards the provision of a professional qualified water bailiff force to police those waters under threat or without any protection currently then I would gladly pay it. I'd argue that it's something we could use nationally now - a national unit which could assist those bailiff forces already in place that are employed by the DSFBs. We already know that in most cases that there are insufficient bailiffs on Scottish waters so it would seem reasonable to suggest that a small national 'force' would go some way to helping with the issues. Police Scotland are already pushed to the limits, they do not have the resource to be able to assist bailiffs on our water systems as much as they might wish to.
It tickles my sense of humour to draw an analogy with American law enforcement, but if you consider the current bailiff forces in Scotland as the local sheriffs then what I'm supposing could most likely be considered the FBI :z4 OK, not the best analogy but I think you probably get the idea.
How much is a fair levy/licence ??? I am uncertain. Depends what it's going to pay for and (importantly) whatever it does have to pay for has to be of benefit not a hindrance to existing fisheries management.
H :cool:
-
According to the bill there will be no rod licence ,
Hmmmm...there is a bit that says they have the right to bring in licensed fishing...
-
Licenced fishing Yes, but no specific rod licence, the licence seems to be related to Tags for Killing,as an alternative or accessory to Levies, whatev er it will change fishing for ever easgach 1
-
This is not the consultation, but something a lot shorter and easier to understand ....... Have you read it?
I believe the 'SRG' is the Stakeholders Reference Group, which includes the Scottish Government, the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards, the Association of Scottish Still Water Fisheries, SANA and the Scottish Federation of Coarse Anglers?
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0049/00498704.pdf (http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0049/00498704.pdf)