xenon
Well-known member
In the light of the latest EA debacle regarding the river Lugg, does anyone here have anything good to say about the EA? Or are they just an utterly useless waste of time effort and money?
EA
- Thread starter xenon
- Start date
Aknib
Well-known member
I'm going with an utterly useless waste of time and money, along with many other publicly funded services or agencies.
Unless of course when it comes to rocking up after the event and telling us all how naughty someone's been, they're pretty good at that and some will see this as justification for their existence whilst others will ask what the Hell they were doing sitting on their lardy r'ses when they could have moved in to prevent further damage in the first place.
It's a special kind of mind set and a disease of which I hope I never deteriorate into.
Still...
It beats accountable, result based working for a living!
Unless of course when it comes to rocking up after the event and telling us all how naughty someone's been, they're pretty good at that and some will see this as justification for their existence whilst others will ask what the Hell they were doing sitting on their lardy r'ses when they could have moved in to prevent further damage in the first place.
It's a special kind of mind set and a disease of which I hope I never deteriorate into.
Still...
It beats accountable, result based working for a living!
Here's a link to a local newspaper about the incident on the River Lugg.
www.ledburyreporter.co.uk
It seems that the landowner had decided to dredge and clear the banks even though the length is a Site of Special Interest. Why blame the EA for a deliberate act.? The EA can't go on site and stop the work without first applying to the courts. And court procedures can take a long time.
River Lugg destruction: Government agencies step in to investigate
NATURAL England, the Environment Agency and the Forestry Commission have joined forces to investigate the destruction of the riverbank along the…
It seems that the landowner had decided to dredge and clear the banks even though the length is a Site of Special Interest. Why blame the EA for a deliberate act.? The EA can't go on site and stop the work without first applying to the courts. And court procedures can take a long time.
no-one in particular
Well-known member
I had a long running dispute with the EA once about the failure to put a fish- run into a new sluice gate they built, it was a losing battle. Someone mentioned Natural England, I had a discourse about beavers with them once and that never got me anywhere either. Basically it is the same with all official bodies, they have their agendas and that's it, they don't take any notice of the public; they might make noises like they are but the reality is different in my opinion.
My view is once they make their plans, desires, set their budgets and agendas behind closed doors that's it, they will not change them, try and all you will get is a load of carefully prepared spiel and excuses.
I remember what they did when all those flood scares were about many years ago, they ruined one of my local river stretches, uprooted everything trees the lot, I don't know if anyone knew it was happening but all I knew about it was when I went there one day and it had been devastated and that was probably the way it was for a lot of the general public.
However, I did report a possible pollution event once and they reacted very quickly on that, but I think only because I reported it to a lock keeper who worked for the EA so it got direct attention.
My view is once they make their plans, desires, set their budgets and agendas behind closed doors that's it, they will not change them, try and all you will get is a load of carefully prepared spiel and excuses.
I remember what they did when all those flood scares were about many years ago, they ruined one of my local river stretches, uprooted everything trees the lot, I don't know if anyone knew it was happening but all I knew about it was when I went there one day and it had been devastated and that was probably the way it was for a lot of the general public.
However, I did report a possible pollution event once and they reacted very quickly on that, but I think only because I reported it to a lock keeper who worked for the EA so it got direct attention.
Last edited:
xenon
Well-known member
Why blame the EA for a deliberate act? Clearly the EA are hardly responsible for whoever did this, but my understanding is this action startd on the 26th Nov. If they cannot move faster than this (i.e. way too late) in a case involving a SSSI, why bother at all?Here's a link to a local newspaper about the incident on the River Lugg.
River Lugg destruction: Government agencies step in to investigate
NATURAL England, the Environment Agency and the Forestry Commission have joined forces to investigate the destruction of the riverbank along the…
It seems that the landowner had decided to dredge and clear the banks even though the length is a Site of Special Interest. Why blame the EA for a deliberate act.? The EA can't go on site and stop the work without first applying to the courts. And court procedures can take a long time.
In response to the OP, I called in a pollution event some years back on a local river, the guy on the "pollution hotline" told me they would aim to come and have look "within 2 weeks". Tells you all you need to know!
As it turned out, they were there the next day, but only because I got in touch with someone who has a long track record of bringing private prosecutions against polluters, and the perpetrator was very close to the EA.
As it turned out, they were there the next day, but only because I got in touch with someone who has a long track record of bringing private prosecutions against polluters, and the perpetrator was very close to the EA.
no-one in particular
Well-known member
Sorry if this a bit off subject but it has similar veins to it-I think this is typical of Government/council democracy. I have for about two years been trying to get some signage put up at two places where many thousands of yards of fishing lines are lost every year. They ignored my first lot so I reopened it recently, their signs are useless and this person knows everyone swims all along the beach and no one will read these signs. The first reply I got was the usual with the default no, it always is and always will be-I have just sent off my second, I know it will be a long losing battle.
I have been forwarded your online report below by our customer services team.
In late 2019 following a full audit of our health and safety signage we worked with the RNLI and installed new signage along the entire seafront, this signage already states that there are submerged objects and shelved beach in various locations along the seafront. I have attached a snip of an example below for reference.
Unfortunately whilst I agree with your sentiments around plastic pollution it is not reasonably practicable for us to provide any more specific signage than we have already done to date, the sea bed is not our land and our signage already makes clear that there are hazards throughout the area that the public should beware of. We also only encourage people to swim in the sea within our two bathing water areas where the water quality is monitored and a seasonal lifeguard service is provided.
Apologies for the long time taken to reply but there are some points I think you should take into consideration. The general signage is fine but it is only a general warning you have posted along the seafront. The problem here is specific and specific to a group i.e. anglers. It needs specific signage at both jetties as to the danger and where specifically. If it was a small problem fair enough but it is not, a huge of amount wasted line gets lost around the rocks there every year. This is significant pollution and a danger to everyone including swimmers and boats etc. You may not be responsible for the actual sea bed but you are responsible for pollution as we all are no matter where it is and as you have the means to reduce it - it is an onus you should take wherever possible.
There is a car park next to the area where I am sure you make thousands of pounds each year, a couple of proper signs in place might only cost a couple of hundred of that. This will do some real good not only for the environment but also for the many anglers who day trip to the town and spend a lot of money. I think you should consider them as well. Please just put it to your next council meeting and please don't take years doing it as the problem is current, has been for hundreds of years and should not be neglected any further.
I look forward to your reply, thank you.
I have been forwarded your online report below by our customer services team.
In late 2019 following a full audit of our health and safety signage we worked with the RNLI and installed new signage along the entire seafront, this signage already states that there are submerged objects and shelved beach in various locations along the seafront. I have attached a snip of an example below for reference.
Unfortunately whilst I agree with your sentiments around plastic pollution it is not reasonably practicable for us to provide any more specific signage than we have already done to date, the sea bed is not our land and our signage already makes clear that there are hazards throughout the area that the public should beware of. We also only encourage people to swim in the sea within our two bathing water areas where the water quality is monitored and a seasonal lifeguard service is provided.
Apologies for the long time taken to reply but there are some points I think you should take into consideration. The general signage is fine but it is only a general warning you have posted along the seafront. The problem here is specific and specific to a group i.e. anglers. It needs specific signage at both jetties as to the danger and where specifically. If it was a small problem fair enough but it is not, a huge of amount wasted line gets lost around the rocks there every year. This is significant pollution and a danger to everyone including swimmers and boats etc. You may not be responsible for the actual sea bed but you are responsible for pollution as we all are no matter where it is and as you have the means to reduce it - it is an onus you should take wherever possible.
There is a car park next to the area where I am sure you make thousands of pounds each year, a couple of proper signs in place might only cost a couple of hundred of that. This will do some real good not only for the environment but also for the many anglers who day trip to the town and spend a lot of money. I think you should consider them as well. Please just put it to your next council meeting and please don't take years doing it as the problem is current, has been for hundreds of years and should not be neglected any further.
I look forward to your reply, thank you.
Last edited:
Wakou
Well-known member
I think that is unfair. 90% of those working for the EA are dedicated and passionate professionals, and the EA does some fantastic work. However those at the top have sometimese shown themselves to be weak. And let us face it, without the support of government and the courts, some of their high-profile work has been thankless. They are like the police, or the social services, we all hate them when they fail, but do not notice the essential, everyday work that they do.
Wakou
Well-known member
Well yes, it is a bit OT! But an interesting issue nonetheless. Please start a different thread, where perhaps more sea/shore anglers might see it and respond?
mikench
Well-known member
Good luck with that Mark. I have found most local authorities are useless and don't have a clue about the drivel they espouse on the websites and in the standard reply you receive about how they value your communication, will respond within 28 days, the integrity of their processes( planning in my case) blah blah. You then hear nothing for months so resend and, guess what, you then receive the same standard response.
Wakou
Well-known member
In defence of the EA. I just used their info to decide whether to go fishing today!
(probably not!)
(probably not!)
theartist
Well-known member
You realise that's not a river level chart but a cross section of your river after their next flood prevention dredging
Wakou
Well-known member
You are joking of course? (I pray) Look at the scales, it updates every 6 posibbly every 3?) hours, it is a measure of the river level at that point
sam vimes
Well-known member
Whilst I'm generally not a big fan of the EA, I'm very wary about being too negative about them. With limited interaction over the last few years, it's become very obvious to me that the EA is like a hydra. It's a beast of an organization that pulls in wildly differing directions at times. Different departments can have totally opposing agendas, and they don't necessarily have any visibility of what the other is up to. I know that much of the flood prevention remit gives scant regard to their fishery protection role. Separate departments with seemingly no real coordination or oversight. Our views on the EA are invariably going to be coloured massively by the fact we are anglers. I suspect that if we were a forum of York property owners, we'd have a totally different perspective. It may still not be overly positive, but it would be quite different.
Sadly, I believe that many people, with wildly differing agendas, will share a dim view of the EA as a whole. I doubt that will change much until some of their roles are disentangled from the overarching organization. At very least, they need to communicate more and have better management so that different departments don't keep working in isolation or in opposition to one another. I know that there are some really good folks working for the EA. That they end up hamstrung by the very organization they represent isn't really their fault.
Sadly, I believe that many people, with wildly differing agendas, will share a dim view of the EA as a whole. I doubt that will change much until some of their roles are disentangled from the overarching organization. At very least, they need to communicate more and have better management so that different departments don't keep working in isolation or in opposition to one another. I know that there are some really good folks working for the EA. That they end up hamstrung by the very organization they represent isn't really their fault.
steve2
Well-known member
Opposite to you I still believe there should be a close season on all water, even commercials.
Steve I guess you take a self enforced break for three month, whilst I have an EA enforced break from the river. Thankfully for me, the Trent and misery canal is still available for my fishing fix.
I can only hope my presence on the towpath doesn't disturb spawning fish, nesting birds and the flora and fauna, quite like it apparently was going to on the river bank.
I can only hope my presence on the towpath doesn't disturb spawning fish, nesting birds and the flora and fauna, quite like it apparently was going to on the river bank.
John Aston
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,022
- Reaction score
- 2,639
Oh, but it's so easy for that most apathetic of groups - anglers - to start moaning about the EA. Let's get our own act together too eh? The same pitiful number belong to the Angling Trust as belonged to the ACA , too many of us leave litter and too few of us put anything back into our sport at all . We pretend , as a community , that we care about the environment but most anglers wouldn't know a harrier from a hawfinch and a staggeringly small number show any interest in ecology . Try engaging the average angler about invertebrate diversity, the effect of climate change or abstraction and they'll look at you as if you're crazy before launching into another tirade about otters.. Look at the membership numbers for the RSPB, RSPCA or even BASC - and weep . We should be ashamed of ourselves .
The EA , with whom I've had a fair bit of contact, have some hardworking , decent and expert staff and they get pitifully small funding . I have found the pollution hot line responsive and helpful . I've also encountered some more senior staff who have varied from inspirational to abysmal . And my patience wears very thin when I hear about yet another bonkers scheme targetted at encouraging salmon to run the most unlikely and unsuitable river , as if they were the only species that mattered.
The EA , with whom I've had a fair bit of contact, have some hardworking , decent and expert staff and they get pitifully small funding . I have found the pollution hot line responsive and helpful . I've also encountered some more senior staff who have varied from inspirational to abysmal . And my patience wears very thin when I hear about yet another bonkers scheme targetted at encouraging salmon to run the most unlikely and unsuitable river , as if they were the only species that mattered.
steve2
Well-known member
Having not fished for18 months I have had a long close season. My clubs have a 2 month close season on lakes, 3months on rivers and 6 month close season for pike. My nearest canal is classed as a river so no canal fishing for me. I grew up with a close season so I still have one.