 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Welcome to the new web site for
River Wye Gillies Association
River Wye Gillies Association
'protecting and preserving salmon on the river Wye'
RWGA/WUF Meeting Minutes
Date: 14th December 2009
Present: David Revill (DR) – Chairman, Geoff Frank (GF) – RWGA, Stuart Smith (SS) – RWGA, Stephen Marsh – Smith (SMS) – WUF, Simon Evans (SE) – WUF, James Kent (JK) – Independent.
Start: 17.00
End: 20.30
1.0 Opening
DR – Stated that the purpose of the meeting was to try and create greater unity between WUF and RWGA. Both sides have something to gain from this process:-
WUF
- Potentially more funding
- More Voluntary help
- Greater support
RWGA
- Preservation of Gillies
- More employment and angling opportunities
- Greater support for river
2.0 Background
SMS laid out the background to WUF as follows:-
- He started fishing the Wye in 1972, one of the better years.
- By the end of March 1973 the following year, 2000+ fish had been caught.
- By the end of April, 50 dead fish outside his house due to UDN
- 1976 Catastrophic dry year lead to deaths of 1000s.
- Hatchery started in 1974 at Glasbury, E.A closed it down following 1984 – 1993 review (a published document) A second hatchery was started in 1995 and a third in 2002
- Since it started in 1996, WUF have been involved in 64 bids for funds with over 50% success.
- WUF is a private trust, registered charity and company limited by guarantee and relies on raising core funds to match EU and other funding.
- Activities aimed at improving Wye proceed at approximate rate of 3-4% p.a. through various schemes.
- To date the busiest year for works was 2007. (Turnover £1million+ pa) However, 2010 will see a new peak.
- WUF currently has a mail out list of 12,000 for the Passport scheme, and this has seen year on year growth of 30%.
GF laid out the background of the RWGA as follows:-
- RWGA formed in 1972.
- Since the decline in the number of Gillies the RWGA membership has been open to the public. (Operating as a representative type body).
- Originally carried out anti – poaching patrols as 1000’s of fish used to be taken.
- The RWGA believes poachers are still active.
- Believe some WUF works are good and some not so effective.
- Believe only the spring salmon run will regenerate the whole river and needs focus.
- Would like to see peer review of WUF’s work.
- Broadly agree with WUF on problems facing the river.
Following the openings, a broad discussion was then held loosely around the agenda:-
- SS E.A (anglers) returns, owner returns – Why are we not being consistent with all other England and Wales rivers and using Anglers returns?
- SMS - The tradition on the Wye has always been to report using the owner’s numbers, thus keeping a continuous data set.
- SMS - It should be understood that WUF’s actions are based on what needs doing and what we can get funding for, rather than being lead by numbers of fish caught.
- GF - Surely you have to show it is working to take supporters with you? How can you show it is working?
- SMS – You can show how far fish have ascended tributaries when fish passes have been built and the benefits of habitat restoration and water quality improvements by electrofishing.
- GF – If the emphasis is on getting fish to travel far up river, doesn’t this create a greater chance of redds being frozen out in winter or likewise drying out and a severe reduction on available habitat during summer (low) flow episodes?
- SE – Shouldn’t, as they tend to spawn mid flow.
Putchers were raised:-
- Currently take 700 fish per season.
- Of these 200-250 per season would be Wye fish.
- When considered against the rod catch, Putchers kill as many fish as rods.
- G.F confirmed that the RWGA would give any assistance it could if the hat was passed around again for a putcher buyout.
Smolt counting raised:-
- SS - No process will be in control unless you can empirically show what you are achieving.
- SMS stated that you make diagnosis on facts you have and on availability of evidence. A lot of the symptoms are very obvious.
- SE – In the Life plus bid we have just won €400k was originally budgeted for monitoring. This was removed by the funding agency who only want the money spent on ‘concrete’ actions to improve the SAC features salmon
- SE- Monitoring detracts from efforts to enhance. Currently the Wye’s salmon stocks are monitored by the EAW/WUF using juvenile surveys, rod catch, 2 fish counters and limited redd counting. There was considerable scope for more but its benefit needs to be assured and monies raised to do it
- SE – The EAW fund 110 sites for electro-fishing of which around 50 are counted each year, the rest are done on 3 to 6 year rotation.
- SE – EAW then fund some additional sites to monitor works via a benefit in kind for WUF
- SE – The only real fund you can apply to for further monitoring is NERC, but to do this you have to go through a university. Universities currently working on the Wye with this fund include Cardiff and Southampton.
- For Smolt counting WUF just do not have the money.
Middle River
- SS pointed out that regular anglers state fish are just not being caught but not being seen either.
- SMS – The performance of the Lugg and Arrow was good until 1982. During the 80’s, 9 weirs were built taking away 250 linear miles of spawning catchment, in one generation.
- SMS – Fish now hold either below Monmouth or above Glasbury
- SMS – We are now seeing to repopulate the Lugg and Arrow. It will be another 5 years before we get any adults back (in significant quantities).
- SMS – The Arrow has been stocked for the last 4 years but not 2009 and has seen a good conversion of fry to parr.
- GF – Are you claiming an improvement generally, when clearly there is none?
- SMS – I am equally as disappointed as you with 2009’s catch but in respect of Lugg and Arrow it is too early to claim more than re establishment of access.
Hatcheries:-
- GF – I do not believe it is the be all and end all, but need to maximise stocks and nature waste’s eggs.
- GF – I note Stephen that you admitted that stocking did work in Arrow.
- SMS – Yes, However we are limited by regulations whereby we can only stock above manmade obstructions to migration. Also there is a limit on the number of fish caught for this purpose. The current basis of mitigation is the area of habitat lost by Elan dams. This policy is currently undergoing review.
- SMS – I am not convinced in the current circumstances, with the shortage of eggs, that additional stocking would accelerate recovery. But there is little more we can do with current E.A policy.
- SS – Are we maximising the hatchery process? I heard only 2 fish were caught this year due to the high water, why aren’t we making every effort to fill hatchery, whatever the circumstances?
- SMS – In terms of our 30 hen, 30 cock allocation we failed miserably. However, the EAW will not allow netting of fish.
- SMS – When stocking, we have preferred to stock with fry due to better and measurable survival rates.
- SS – What about low down (near tide) smolt stocking?
- GF – This is not RWGA policy. Stocking with autumn parr is our preferred method.
- SE – It (smolt stocking) was tried in the Trent, and the adults turned up in the rivers all around the North Atlantic. (But not the Trent!)
Water Framework Directive:-
- SE laid out the WFD which is now enshrined in UK and EU Law.
- Fish matter and populations must not deteriorate.
- Fines will be levied against UK government if numbers fail to achieve the results that would be expected in an un-impacted stream.
- UK government legally obliged to put things in good order by 2027.
- SAC (Wye and Usk) streams have to be in “Good Ecological Status” by 2015.
- If this is not done you can complain to the EU.
- Money is now being set aside by the government to deal with this.
- The Wye falls under the Seven River Basin District plan.
Passport: -
- GF – The Passport raises expectations, are you going to publish beat figures?
- GF – Are you going to put details of canoes?
- SE – We already do and do not sell fishing on the days of peak canoe traffic on lower Wye. Most anglers are fully aware.
- SE – It is a popular scheme, with 19 out of 20 anglers coming back.
- SMS – The scheme was developed to justify investment in the river. Within ERDF we could only apply for funds, where we could prove benefit to the local economy and jobs as well.
- DR – It is fair to say that the Fish Tweed website does provide a lot more information.
- SMS- It also costs £26,000 for a week on a prime lower Tweed beat!
What do RWGA want?
1. GF – Extended hatchery programme, to utilise Cynrig to full capacity and stock out of parr not fry.
2. GF – Lobby EA/CCW for better bird predation control.
3. GF – Monitor public utility sewage outfalls.
4. GF – More scientific expertise in Wye foundation.
If this could be achieved then the RWGA would, given the approval of its membership support WUF.
In response to above 4 points:
- SMS – Do you feel (GF) you could fill the gap if WUF left?
- SS – Absolutely not.
- GF – That’s never been our intention. We wish to succeed, but there should be transparency and greater inclusion of other bodies. Its work should also be properly evaluated as positive feedback to ensure the original objectives of the foundation are met.
DR – The meeting the ended there. It was agreed that WUF would respond to the 4 points above, and a further meeting held, only if agreeable to all parties.
Date: 14th December 2009
Present: David Revill (DR) – Chairman, Geoff Frank (GF) – RWGA, Stuart Smith (SS) – RWGA, Stephen Marsh – Smith (SMS) – WUF, Simon Evans (SE) – WUF, James Kent (JK) – Independent.
Start: 17.00
End: 20.30
1.0 Opening
DR – Stated that the purpose of the meeting was to try and create greater unity between WUF and RWGA. Both sides have something to gain from this process:-
WUF
- Potentially more funding
- More Voluntary help
- Greater support
RWGA
- Preservation of Gillies
- More employment and angling opportunities
- Greater support for river
2.0 Background
SMS laid out the background to WUF as follows:-
- He started fishing the Wye in 1972, one of the better years.
- By the end of March 1973 the following year, 2000+ fish had been caught.
- By the end of April, 50 dead fish outside his house due to UDN
- 1976 Catastrophic dry year lead to deaths of 1000s.
- Hatchery started in 1974 at Glasbury, E.A closed it down following 1984 – 1993 review (a published document) A second hatchery was started in 1995 and a third in 2002
- Since it started in 1996, WUF have been involved in 64 bids for funds with over 50% success.
- WUF is a private trust, registered charity and company limited by guarantee and relies on raising core funds to match EU and other funding.
- Activities aimed at improving Wye proceed at approximate rate of 3-4% p.a. through various schemes.
- To date the busiest year for works was 2007. (Turnover £1million+ pa) However, 2010 will see a new peak.
- WUF currently has a mail out list of 12,000 for the Passport scheme, and this has seen year on year growth of 30%.
GF laid out the background of the RWGA as follows:-
- RWGA formed in 1972.
- Since the decline in the number of Gillies the RWGA membership has been open to the public. (Operating as a representative type body).
- Originally carried out anti – poaching patrols as 1000’s of fish used to be taken.
- The RWGA believes poachers are still active.
- Believe some WUF works are good and some not so effective.
- Believe only the spring salmon run will regenerate the whole river and needs focus.
- Would like to see peer review of WUF’s work.
- Broadly agree with WUF on problems facing the river.
Following the openings, a broad discussion was then held loosely around the agenda:-
- SS E.A (anglers) returns, owner returns – Why are we not being consistent with all other England and Wales rivers and using Anglers returns?
- SMS - The tradition on the Wye has always been to report using the owner’s numbers, thus keeping a continuous data set.
- SMS - It should be understood that WUF’s actions are based on what needs doing and what we can get funding for, rather than being lead by numbers of fish caught.
- GF - Surely you have to show it is working to take supporters with you? How can you show it is working?
- SMS – You can show how far fish have ascended tributaries when fish passes have been built and the benefits of habitat restoration and water quality improvements by electrofishing.
- GF – If the emphasis is on getting fish to travel far up river, doesn’t this create a greater chance of redds being frozen out in winter or likewise drying out and a severe reduction on available habitat during summer (low) flow episodes?
- SE – Shouldn’t, as they tend to spawn mid flow.
Putchers were raised:-
- Currently take 700 fish per season.
- Of these 200-250 per season would be Wye fish.
- When considered against the rod catch, Putchers kill as many fish as rods.
- G.F confirmed that the RWGA would give any assistance it could if the hat was passed around again for a putcher buyout.
Smolt counting raised:-
- SS - No process will be in control unless you can empirically show what you are achieving.
- SMS stated that you make diagnosis on facts you have and on availability of evidence. A lot of the symptoms are very obvious.
- SE – In the Life plus bid we have just won €400k was originally budgeted for monitoring. This was removed by the funding agency who only want the money spent on ‘concrete’ actions to improve the SAC features salmon
- SE- Monitoring detracts from efforts to enhance. Currently the Wye’s salmon stocks are monitored by the EAW/WUF using juvenile surveys, rod catch, 2 fish counters and limited redd counting. There was considerable scope for more but its benefit needs to be assured and monies raised to do it
- SE – The EAW fund 110 sites for electro-fishing of which around 50 are counted each year, the rest are done on 3 to 6 year rotation.
- SE – EAW then fund some additional sites to monitor works via a benefit in kind for WUF
- SE – The only real fund you can apply to for further monitoring is NERC, but to do this you have to go through a university. Universities currently working on the Wye with this fund include Cardiff and Southampton.
- For Smolt counting WUF just do not have the money.
Middle River
- SS pointed out that regular anglers state fish are just not being caught but not being seen either.
- SMS – The performance of the Lugg and Arrow was good until 1982. During the 80’s, 9 weirs were built taking away 250 linear miles of spawning catchment, in one generation.
- SMS – Fish now hold either below Monmouth or above Glasbury
- SMS – We are now seeing to repopulate the Lugg and Arrow. It will be another 5 years before we get any adults back (in significant quantities).
- SMS – The Arrow has been stocked for the last 4 years but not 2009 and has seen a good conversion of fry to parr.
- GF – Are you claiming an improvement generally, when clearly there is none?
- SMS – I am equally as disappointed as you with 2009’s catch but in respect of Lugg and Arrow it is too early to claim more than re establishment of access.
Hatcheries:-
- GF – I do not believe it is the be all and end all, but need to maximise stocks and nature waste’s eggs.
- GF – I note Stephen that you admitted that stocking did work in Arrow.
- SMS – Yes, However we are limited by regulations whereby we can only stock above manmade obstructions to migration. Also there is a limit on the number of fish caught for this purpose. The current basis of mitigation is the area of habitat lost by Elan dams. This policy is currently undergoing review.
- SMS – I am not convinced in the current circumstances, with the shortage of eggs, that additional stocking would accelerate recovery. But there is little more we can do with current E.A policy.
- SS – Are we maximising the hatchery process? I heard only 2 fish were caught this year due to the high water, why aren’t we making every effort to fill hatchery, whatever the circumstances?
- SMS – In terms of our 30 hen, 30 cock allocation we failed miserably. However, the EAW will not allow netting of fish.
- SMS – When stocking, we have preferred to stock with fry due to better and measurable survival rates.
- SS – What about low down (near tide) smolt stocking?
- GF – This is not RWGA policy. Stocking with autumn parr is our preferred method.
- SE – It (smolt stocking) was tried in the Trent, and the adults turned up in the rivers all around the North Atlantic. (But not the Trent!)
Water Framework Directive:-
- SE laid out the WFD which is now enshrined in UK and EU Law.
- Fish matter and populations must not deteriorate.
- Fines will be levied against UK government if numbers fail to achieve the results that would be expected in an un-impacted stream.
- UK government legally obliged to put things in good order by 2027.
- SAC (Wye and Usk) streams have to be in “Good Ecological Status” by 2015.
- If this is not done you can complain to the EU.
- Money is now being set aside by the government to deal with this.
- The Wye falls under the Seven River Basin District plan.
Passport: -
- GF – The Passport raises expectations, are you going to publish beat figures?
- GF – Are you going to put details of canoes?
- SE – We already do and do not sell fishing on the days of peak canoe traffic on lower Wye. Most anglers are fully aware.
- SE – It is a popular scheme, with 19 out of 20 anglers coming back.
- SMS – The scheme was developed to justify investment in the river. Within ERDF we could only apply for funds, where we could prove benefit to the local economy and jobs as well.
- DR – It is fair to say that the Fish Tweed website does provide a lot more information.
- SMS- It also costs £26,000 for a week on a prime lower Tweed beat!
What do RWGA want?
1. GF – Extended hatchery programme, to utilise Cynrig to full capacity and stock out of parr not fry.
2. GF – Lobby EA/CCW for better bird predation control.
3. GF – Monitor public utility sewage outfalls.
4. GF – More scientific expertise in Wye foundation.
If this could be achieved then the RWGA would, given the approval of its membership support WUF.
In response to above 4 points:
- SMS – Do you feel (GF) you could fill the gap if WUF left?
- SS – Absolutely not.
- GF – That’s never been our intention. We wish to succeed, but there should be transparency and greater inclusion of other bodies. Its work should also be properly evaluated as positive feedback to ensure the original objectives of the foundation are met.
DR – The meeting the ended there. It was agreed that WUF would respond to the 4 points above, and a further meeting held, only if agreeable to all parties.
RWGA/WUF Meeting
RWGA reply to WUF meeting responses are shown here and if you scroll down the page you will see the minutes of the meeting
RWGA reply to WUF meeting responses are shown here and if you scroll down the page you will see the minutes of the meeting
David,
We have now digested fully the WUF response and whilst recognising it as potential step forward we still struggle a little with its substance!
We note the comment that any support, from RWGA for WUF activities, has 'got to come from the heart'! Well I'm sure we all recognise by now that what we all do and say with regard to improving the Wye 'comes from the heart'!
Our reply to the WUF responses are as follows:
1). Extended hatchery programme, to utilise Cynrig to full capacity and stock
out parr not fry!
WUF Response......WUF will meet with EAW and discuss the current hatchery
position to see what can be done!
RWGA reply........'The EA in their Autumn 2009 Newsletter (Special Wye Edition)
seem to agree that the current stocking programme and its controls need
reinforcing. So given the current plight of catch returns a meeting with the EAW
as soon as possible to see what can be done would seem to have the potential to
achieve the best and most productive use of Cynrig and its output!' We would
hope this meeting would include discussion on 'catch up process',which has often failed to supply the number of adults allowed! We would ask that a representative from RWGA be allowed to attend?
2). Lobby EA/CCW for better bird predation control!
WUF response.......So far as we are aware, this is managed by members of RWGA
below Hay with an official DEFRA licence while above by a local group of owners
and anglers with a licence from WAG. It would be helpful to have details of what control is deemed necessary and thereby determine if the existing arrangements fall short.
RWGA reply.......Avian bird predation control, we understand, is a very sensitive issue. However we do not understand why the views of gillies and other regular anglers as to both the perceived size of the bird community and their effect seem to be ignored by EAW/CCW/WUF. We certainly do recognise that to lobby for better control there is a need to understand better the facts. Current management controls are considered to be insignificant and ownership of licenses are unclear. It would be helpful to understand what circumstances are deemed necessary for WUF to lobby for better controls? Striving to improve in river habitat and then allowing unnecessary destruction of parr/smolts makes no sense!
3). Monitor public utility sewage outfalls!
WUF response...... There are some changes in the way these are to be monitored
imminently: we will find out what the implications for the river(s) these will
have!
RWGA reply....... Unsure as to whether these changes are relevant to all outfalls, including 'public utility' or not? We look forward to reviewing these proposed changes when published and discussing whether they meet both WUF and RWGA aspirations! Do we have an indication who is proposing changes and when?
4). More scientific expertise in Wye foundation!
WUF response......We think RWGA may be unaware of the quite extensive monitoring and research that has taken place….and the costs involved!
RWGA reply........'There are a number of activities carried out or being carried
out by WUF that receive regular criticism from RWGA and our supporters and particularly their results/success. It is quite probable that we may be unaware of quite how extensive the monitoring and research that has taken place to validate projects performance, simply because at no time have we felt you have made the information available for us to make a judgement! However, we are quite prepared to open a dialogue on which projects are deemed inconclusive if all results and research [be it good or bad] is made available for further scrutiny?
RWGA concluded by saying.....If this could be achieved then RWGA would, given
the approval of its members, support WUF
WUF response.......We would like to see an end to the endless arguments and
rubbishing of the Wye. We know it isn’t as good as it was, but we work
ceaselessly to try and rectify this. Achieving this is not helped by having a
group, RWGA canvassing against us. It is their responsibility to keep an open
mind and understand in much greater detail and quantum what WUF and partners are undertaking as well as having a greater understanding of fishery management….if they wish to criticise. It should be clearly understood that WUF only just manages to match funding its existing projects. Generally, projects are aimed at improving the fishery and funds may not be used for routine work. On top of that we are expected to respond to consultations, (varying from Severn Barrage to numbering on canoes) RWGA’s efforts leave us with less resources than we might otherwise have and so taking on extra responsibilities such as requested needs to come with some understanding that they need to address this. would also like to see the March T&S article containing something positive about WUF. A pitch for the 2010 Passport would be nice perhaps some information on what we are planning with our new projects (but not how they won’t work!) It’s got to come from the heart though
RWGA reply......We think we have to be realistic, after all that has gone before trust is not going to be built up overnight, it is a two way process, and whilst we expressed concern at the perceived lack of substance in your responses we do recognise the need to make progress towards our goal of recovering salmon stocks. Were there to be a new spirit of openness where you are willing to show the results, successes and failures, properly validated, of all your work on the restoration of salmon stocks, then perhaps RWGA and most other regular river users might be more inclined to support WUF. For example recent work on the Pipeline project made great play of the many more smolts each improved area could generate. Good stuff but many more compared to what? No reference to where the eggs/fry to populate the improved habitat were to come from! Surely such studies and conclusions need to identify all the factors needed. Does this estimate of new smolts presume a stream fully stocked with eggs ,fry, parr and smolts, living in a perfect world without predators etc? Does it need stocking to populate it? Claims like this are often seen in WUF projects and need some basis of measurement and as we suggested some independent peer review before being accepted as credible and given credit!
Like any organisation we reserve the right to hold views on those activities that impact on our 'reason for being'. We would of course be delighted to welcome those that are proven successful!.
As you know the Trout and Salmon article is produced by Geoff Franks as an individual and is not controlled by or necessarily the view of RWGA. You have been offered access to add to it in the past and have seemingly declined, that offer still remains open, items can be considered for inclusion but will be of course subject to T & S editorial control.
items above some other items of our concern and what opportunities exist to engage RWGA and its supporters with WUF in the workings of the river.