Let’s Kick That Can Forever…

[John Bailey]

I love this modern phrase, even though I’m not exactly sure of its meaning? I’ve been guessing it is simply acknowledging a problem, talking about it, but not getting anything much at all done? Which brings me to this week’s article in the Angling Times on “What Future For Iconic Wensum?” The piece was put together by the excellent Dominic Garnett, for whom I have nothing but time and admiration, but he fell completely into the trap I knew would be waiting for him. In short, the message was hijacked by the usual suspects, who have dogged any hope of a Wensum revival for nigh on thirty years.

When Dominic phoned me for my views on a river that gave me hundreds of two pound roach in its prime, I warned him to be wary of the official line peddled by the Environment Agency, and other quasi-official bodies that have emerged to put the Wensum right. Dominic’s last paragraph sums up exactly what I knew and feared he would be told so I’ll quote it in full. “The (Environment) Agency also told us that its priority was restoring the river and improving the quality of habitats to support healthy fish populations rather than stocking per se. Experts tend to see stocking as a problematic, short-term fix, compared with creating fry refuges, flow deflectors and improvements to build a sustainable revival.”

Well! Where to start? Let’s start by that “kicking of the can” and say that this is exactly the selfsame message the EA has been preaching since the mid-Nineties, during which time numbers of fish in the Wensum have plummeted year on year. And even when the talk gives way to action, the EA mucks it up. One example. Years ago, the Authority spent God knows how much on fry refuges at Swanton Morley, on the mid-river. Within three years, without any maintenance work, the reeds had encroached so densely you could see no sign whatsoever of the work that had been carried out. Money tossed into the wind, as ever.

I’ll freely admit that I see judicious stocking and protection of stocks as twin ways to put the Wensum back on her feet, and I resent the inference made by the EA that I am some sort of dolt for doing so. OF COURSE, I want to see the river habitat improve, which it has done vastly since the Nineties, by the way. OF COURSE, I want to see less domestic, agricultural and industrial pollution, along with less abstraction. OF COURSE, I want to see more riffles, more woody debris, more ranunculus, and more of everything a healthy river needs. I’d be a complete fool if I said these things were not important.

BUT the fact is that the Wensum is not in that bad a state. The Angling Times piece showed me with a two pound roach caught just before lockdown. That roach is living proof that the river is quite able to house such fish, providing there are enough of them to sustain their populations, and that they are given some sort of chance to establish themselves, safe from exorbitant levels of predation.

Proof? For short periods this century, stretches of the Wensum have been stocked quietly with roach from adjoining gravel pits where they were not wanted. These fish, btw, were originally Wensum fish, so they were simply returned in numbers from whence they or their ancestors had come. These returnees were then carefully looked after through a couple of winters, and the worst of the cormorant attacks on them were deterred. The result? In each and every case, whilst the experiment was continued, the roach settled and the fishing became as good as it had been in the Sixties.

So, it is easier, and more profitable, to build this and that along the river and collect ever more data, just like the EA has been doing this past quarter of a century. The fact that none of this work has made barely any discernible difference must be apparent even to them if they were honest about admitting it. Anglers everywhere, not just in Norfolk, are pawns in the game played by “fishery experts”. Habitat improvement is important, but it has become an unwelcome shibboleth before which we all must bow.



The post Let’s Kick That Can Forever… first appeared on FishingMagic Magazine.

Continue reading...

 

[mikench]

Sadly and without wishing to be perjorative , we anglers are a small and apathetic minority and not a particularly vociferous one at that ,whilst the vast majority of the population have never even heard of the Wensum and are more concerned with heating their homes, feeding their families and finding the money to do so, and not that we are afforded some nice roach to catch. I don't see that position changing anytime soon. It's not that the can will be kicked down the road but that it will disappear for good.

 

[Badgerale]

I can see their point of view - a healthy river isn't just one full of fish, but a functional ecosystem where all inhabitants can live and reproduce.

If, like you say, stocking is a means towards this ends then that's great but I doubt the EA cares overly about giving anglers something to catch otherwise - nor should they.

 

[steve2]

It as been said many times that anglers only appear to care about the waters they are fishing and of those not many actually care about the waters they are fishing.

 

[nottskev]

I understand the point that stocking fish into water that can't support or sustain them is an illusory quick fix. And I also understand that habitat improvement measures may well be what some waters need. But I've often wondered why "re-stocking" is so often dismissed out of hand. Surely there must be cases where seeding or kick-starting a species revival by putting some suitable stock in the water is exactly what is needed? I have a river nearby where, with coarse stocks having dramatically collapsed, the river became full, for a time, of grayling (but seemingly little else) - a sign of healthy water. Are we meant to wait decades for coarse species to re-establish, if they are able, or are there occasions when an injection of fish can be justified? Can anyone cite cases where river re-stocking has proved successful, as a counter to people telling us it's all about the habitat?

 

[fishface1]

Depends on the definition of success.

A viable fishery?- many examples of salmon hatcheries and trout hatcheries around the world.

Balanced ecosystem- probably very few. Some cite the (Hampshire) Avon Roach project, and probably this has made a difference, but the Avon is not the same roach river it was 25 years ago. This is probably habitat - faster seasonal flows, less weed (until relatively recently), possibly endocrine disruption (doubtful) and the trout farms.

And then there’s the barbel in the Trent….

Most of the prime barbel years on rivers have been the first,second and third flush of stocked barbel - which then quickly drop off, maybe because of issues with habitat?

 

[John Aston]

My experience relates to brown trout only, but it is instructive . I belong to predominantly fly fishing clubs , covering a medium size river to a small river and smaller becks .

Example one - medium size river, located on the cusp between game and coarse water. The club has stocked significant numbers of fish for decades , typically by three separate stockings , over 3miles of river. For at last 10 years we have stocked with triploids, which can't breed . And over the last 20 years the mood has changed in trout fishing , even with stocked fish to catch and release . Even with that change, the number of overwintering stock fish is relatively low .

Example two - 12miles of lowland beck, from 1 to 8 metres wide. Was stocked annually with c, 300 -- 400 fish for over 50 years. As secretary of one club I was doubtful about the point of doing so. I commissioned a survey from the Wild Trout Trust who confirmed the water varied from being mediocre to good habitat for a sustainable wild trout fishery . We already had wild fish but they were in competition with stockies . Against a lot of opposition from old boys who hated change I got my way and we stopped stocking , saving a grand a year . Year one our catch dropped by almost 50 % . But in year two , we had the highest number of fish ever recorded. It's been up and down since then - coincident with weather, rainfall and the odd pollution incident .The fish we catch are fitter , better looking , far harder fighting, run to a good size (2lbs plus ) and a credit to the water. We will never stock again and if we spend money it is on habitat improvement

Example three - 18 miles of upland limestone stream/river . Very little arable land so run off minimal , spring and rainfed , mainly perfect habitat , well oxygenated and abundant invertebrate life. Never , ever been stocked . very , very healthy , self sustaining stock of wild brown trout with vast numbers of smaller fish in upper waters and fewer , bigger fish (to 5lb plus ) in lower water. I would die in a ditch to prevent this gem being stocked.

Conclusions? Get the habitat right and you will have a sustainable fishery. Ah , but what about predation you say ? We keep accurate catch records going back over a century and they show us we catch more and bigger fish than 50 or 100 years ago . Otters were reintroduced in the 90s , with minimal consultation and they are well established . We catch more now than before they were introduced . I don't know why , and I am not drawing any inferences but it is an interesting fact and perhaps an inconvenient one to some.

Now trout aren't roach or dace , and although they eat similar foods they live in different habitats but they are both indigenous fish to the UK . I hope our experience , backed with detailed records is of interest and relevance to the 'debate ' . Let me say finally that I don't share Mr Bailey's apparent contempt for experts and I don't think anglers always know best. Some are too quick at jumping to conclusions , love simplistic explanations, rely on anecdotal 'evidence and enjoy finger pointing at scientists . I have benefitted greatly from advice from both the WTT and the EA .

 

[steve2]

On the streams I fished the drop i fish numbers can be put down to simple thing over abstraction of water. Where we swam you cant even get your ankles wet now. Then came pollution a no flow to disperse it wiped out miles of river. The EA refused to restock saying that the fish would find their way back from above and below the pollution. This never happened and 10 years later they finally put back some 4 inch chub and dace.