Scottish Live Ban UpdateNew Scottish fisheries legislation which currently includes a blanket ban on livebaiting will be debated for the last time by MPs on Thursday, March 1. As you might expect, the Scottish Federation for Coarse Angling is fighting this right down to the wire, with support from the Pike Anglers Alliance for Scotland and the Pike Anglers Club. There’s more on this on the PAC’s newsfeed (blog), including extracts from a letter sent to the Minister by the SFCA, which points out how evidence considered in the closing stages of the debate was incomplete and misleading. You can see it at http://pacnews.blogspot.com if you don’t already subscribe – just search the blog for Scotland or livebait ban to bring up previous stories on this issue. A full draft of the letter follows. NOTE: The situation is currently very fluid so while we expect some last minute amendments these have not been submitted at this time but there maybe new insights as of next week. Clearly this is a extremely important one to watch as the whole face of pike fishing in Scotland could change after next week’s debate, which obviously has far-reaching implications for all Scottish coarse anglers, along with those who travel north of the border to sample Scotland’s legendary pike fishing. TEXT OF LETTER TO MINISTER:Ms Sarah Boyack MSP 11th February 2007 Dear Ms Boyack Aquaculture & Fisheries Bill I am writing on behalf of the Scottish Federation for Coarse Angling with regard to the Executive’s amendment to the Bill proposing a ban on the use of live vertebrates as bait. Having read the report of the Environment and Rural Development Committee’s debate on this issue at Stage 2 on 31st January it appears that the Executive’s policy on this matter – and thus the Committee’s conclusions – have been based on incomplete evidence and misunderstandings on key issues. We hope it is not too late to correct the position. Perhaps the best way to explain our concerns is to go through the points raised in the Stage 2 debate. You introduced the debate by seeking to “scotch a few myths”, the first of which was that the proposal in question was a late Executive amendment. You pointed out that such a measure was floated in the 2001 Green Paper and in the consultation paper that preceded the Bill itself. This is not in dispute, but when the Bill was presented to Parliament there was no proposal for a ban to be part of primary legislation. Stakeholders were explicitly given to believe that any measure of that kind would come by way of secondary legislation, on which we therefore expected a separate opportunity to make representations as to our point of view. There was no invitation to give written evidence to the Committee on this subject (though we took it upon ourselves to refer to it briefly in our submission) and the Committee did not take oral evidence on the matter when speaking to representatives of angling organisations. The “secondary legislation” approach was only abandoned after the Stage 1 Report in December, and the relevant amendment was published less than a week before the Committee debated it. This gave insufficient time for the arguments to be put to the Committee. We do not claim there has been any deliberate attempt to stifle debate, but nevertheless we would ask you to appreciate that the way this measure has been introduced has effectively deprived those who wished to oppose it of the opportunity to make full representations on the subject. On a point of detail, it is also true that the possibility of such a ban has been debated both at the freshwater fisheries forum and in the Steering Group. But neither the forum nor the Steering Group has expressed unqualified enthusiasm for this proposal. SFCA sits on the Steering Group and has consistently opposed proposals for a ban, as have representatives from the wider coarse angling community in the course of the full meetings of the Forum itself. This issue – alone of all the measures subsequently put forward in the Bill – is formally noted in the Steering Group’s record as one on which consensus could not be reached. In addition, you mentioned that a majority of responses to the Bill consultation were in favour of a ban. This fact was set in context by the comments of Mr Gibson and Mr Brocklebank in the Stage 2 debate. There are two separate branches of angling, one of which has no interest in using live fish as bait and the other where this is an important aspect of the sport. The pattern of responses merely reflects the distribution of enthusiasts for each form of angling. We are heartened that you do not view the proposed ban as a welfare issue, and that you are purely concerned by the potential risks to biodiversity and from parasites or disease spread by fish moved indiscriminately from one water to another. However, it must be said that many supporters of the proposed ban do not share your perspective. We appreciate that such risks exist, but they have been overstated by some who take a “fundamentalist” view on biodiversity itself, and hijacked by others who wish to see a ban for different reasons. In reality, there is no firm evidence that ruffe or any other species allegedly introduced as live baits have actually caused harm to populations of any native species in Loch Lomond, or anywhere else in Scotland. You also put forward the view that using live vertebrates as bait is a problem on biodiversity grounds because it has resulted in the translocation of live fish. To support this you mention the presence of ruffe in Loch Lomond. This example is often quoted, but in fact it is misleading and ambiguous. It is most unlikely that ruffe would ever have been brought to Loch Lomond as live bait, for the very good reason that they are almost never used for bait at all – being too small for the purpose and comparatively difficult to obtain as they are uncommon in other parts of GB. This species has spread elsewhere by other means (for instance, to the Great Lakes in North America through ship’s ballast water) and could have reached Loch Lomond by any of a number of routes unrelated to angling. In any event, ruffe are not a new introduction to Loch Lomond. They were first detected in sampling exercises in the early eighties and are likely to have been present for some years prior to that. Awareness and concern for biodiversity – even among professional fisheries managers – were much less at that time than today, and practices have changed substantially in the interim. All that a ban will achieve is to penalise today’s responsible anglers for the irresponsibility of unknown individuals more than a generation ago. Yes, there are other ways of fishing for predatory species; but this does not justify denying anglers the opportunity to use their chosen sporting methods simply because of a risk that can be overcome adequately by other provisions in the Bill. We are surprised, however, that your concern over biodiversity is not reflected by measures in the Bill to prohibit activities that carry much greater risks than the use of live fish as bait. Most of the inappropriate fish movements and introductions in Scotland arise through escapes and discards from aquaculture facilities and ornamental fishkeepers, or from deliberate stocking. If there is a real risk to biodiversity it mainly comes from those sources, yet there has been no suggestion that any of these activities should be banned. Instead, the Bill seeks to impose tighter controls on them, in particular by regulating movements and introductions through statutory consents. That is also sufficient to address the risks concerned with the use of live fish as bait. There is no necessity for live fish to be moved from one water to another for use as bait, and absolutely no risk to biodiversity or fish health if they are not. There is also the matter of enforcing such a ban. You mention that: “The proposed ban would be implemented by bailiffs, who have local knowledge, and partly by anglers.”. It is not clear what relevant local knowledge bailiffs whose expertise lies in salmon or trout fishing might possess, but in any event the presence of bailiffs with statutory powers is confined to waters with migratory fish populations. Even if we take this term to include non-statutory bailiffs acting on behalf of angling clubs or proprietors there are still substantial gaps in coverage across Scotland – many of them related to precisely the waters where anglers fish for predatory species. If indeed this ban is about protecting biodiversity in general, rather than just serving the interests of game fishery proprietors, it would appear necessary to provide for additional enforcement officers of some kind; yet there is no mention in the Bill of this, or of how any of the additional costs associated with enforcement will be met. We have always accepted that the use of live fish as bait should be restricted to fish taken, during the same fishing session, from the water in which they are being used. This avoids any risk to biodiversity or fish health. We note your comment that “policing any exemption … would be significantly more difficult.” But this is a misconception – in fact it would be easy to distinguish between anglers using baits taken from the same location and any who did not. For instance, the legitimate angler would require a separate set of tackle and bait to capture his bait fish – which is quite different from the tackle employed when using live fish themselves – so the absence of that would legitimately lead to the conclusion that his baits had not been captured there and then. In addition, it is only feasible to move live fish around with the aid of certain apparatus such as tanks, buckets, and aeration pumps. Once more, being in possession of this kind of equipment would offer prima facie evidence that an angler had moved fish, or was intending to do so. And of course the very fact that someone was in possession of fish not ordinarily found in the water concerned would be irrefutable evidence that he had brought them there. The most surprising item in the Stage 2 debate was your comment that “it is disappointing that the issue of a code, which is mentioned in a briefing that was issued to the committee, has not been raised at all with my officials, given that the issues have been discussed for a long time, since 2001, and that the specific proposal was produced in 2005.” With respect to yourself and your officials, this is entirely inaccurate. Our desire to pursue this approach and to engage with the Executive over how it might be made most effective has been made clear from the start: “We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter in detail with the Executive in order to ensure that our Code of Practice, and the implementation of it, addresses any and all concerns which may exist over the issue, and has the maximum impact when it comes into force.” – SFCA response to the Green Paper ‘Scotland’s Freshwater Fish and Fisheries: Securing their Future’ (12th October 2001) “SFCA … contend that a voluntary Code of Practice which will confine the use of fish as live bait to those taken from the water concerned, backed up by statutory controls on introductions, will attract the support and compliance of the anglers affected.” – Angling for Change group response to the Green Paper ‘Scotland’s Freshwater Fish and Fisheries: Securing their Future’ (30th October 2001) “SFCA would be happy to work with the Executive and other stakeholders in formulating the details of alternative legislation along those lines, and in doing our utmost to promote compliance.” – SFCA response to the Aquaculture & Fisheries Bill consultation paper (20th Feb 2006) “… the appropriate step would be to bring in provisions … which directly restrict the use of livebaits to fish caught on the same day from the same water where they are being used … SFCA would be happy to work with the Executive and other stakeholders to formulate the details of a Regulation along those lines, and to promote compliance.” – SFCA written evidence to the Environment & Rural Development Committee (1st September 2006). Our position on this matter has also been reiterated in discussions with officials over the years, and in several meetings of the Steering Group and Fisheries Forum in 2004 and 2005. We have consistently expressed willingness to work with the Executive on restricting the use of live baits to those caught from the water being fished, underpinned by a combination of statutory controls on fish movements and a strong voluntary Code of Practice supported by all the bodies representing pike anglers in GB. This is comparable to the approach that you have deemed adequate in respect of the aquaculture industry, and considerably more stringent than the controls that will be applied to ornamental fishkeeping. All we have asked – and still ask – is that we should be given the opportunity to show that this approach can work. If it fails, we appreciate that we cannot object to a ban subsequently being introduced by the original route of secondary legislation. Finally, you say that: “we [ie, the Executive] do not think that the ban is a big issue”. I am afraid you are mistaken. This measure has overshadowed the whole Bill for coarse anglers. Instead of justifiably being welcomed as the first step ever towards legislative recognition for our sport in Scotland, it has simply become known by most as the “Livebaiting Bill”. That is all the more unfortunate as we have played an active part in the very comprehensive Forum and Steering Group process that led to the Bill and believe the great majority of the proposals in it are positive. You were kind enough to suggest that you and your officials would be happy to talk about the issue with the pike angling community. We welcome that offer and would like to take it up. We would ask that such discussion takes place before the Stage 3 debate. Many thanks Yours sincerely Ron Woods |
Welcome!Log into your account
