This content has been archived. It may no longer be relevant
“Fishing Breaks recent newsletter calls into question Salmon & Trout Conservation UK’s (S&TC) Riverfly Census report despite it being based on independent scientific evidence.
I am involved with the work of S&TC. I have also undertaken a considerable amount of guiding over the past 12 years on the chalkstreams although my angling roots go back to the 1950’s.
One thing I feel I can’t be critised for is not having a lack of passion for the aquatic environment and in particular the health below the surface as opposed to what is above it, which is so often the focus of media attention.
The Government and its Agencies continue to brain wash the public with how “clean” our rivers are and whilst it is true (and cause for celebration) that certain rivers e.g. Trent, Mersey, Thames, Tyne etc have been transformed from the ravages of industry, I am sure many will agree we now face very different, and often invisible, challenges. I believe “clean” is never a word that should be used in the context of a river; in its extreme “clean” can mean sterile and of course such an environment will not support life. Instead we need to talk about the ecological status and this leads to a much different story. By the Government’s own admission 83% of rivers in England fail the test of good ecological status. This is not S&TC scare mongering or inventing but rather telling it how it is.
S&TC does not act on a whim but bases its campaigns on scientific evidence.
It is now well over a decade since Messrs Hayes and Frake published the Millennium Chalkstream Fly Survey raising concerns about a decline in fly life populations. True memories can play tricks, but S&TC is using independently verified scientific data and where possible comparing it with EA’s historic records and other research papers.
The Riverfly Census came about, not by wanting something to do, but from approaches by riparian interests, members, clubs, anglers etc who had become disillusioned, frustrated and concerned at the ecological health of their particular bit of water.
Fishing Breaks’ newsletter makes reference to enlisting support but the response to S&TC’s Chalkstream and Riverfly Census projects have been unprecedented. Why? One can only assume it is because there is a cry for action.
I find it confusing when the newsletter refers to “….. few complain about the lack of fly life. Lack of rising fish yes, but lack of flies no.” May be that is because there has been a move away from imitating a natural life cycle but instead opting for patterns and techniques more likely to be found in use on reservoirs.
For far too long I have attended meeting after meeting with promises of action but little follows. That said, organisations such as Wild Trout Trust, Rivers Trusts, (until December last year I was treasurer of the local one) Wildlife Trusts etc have done (and continue to do) a fantastic job in restoration work but the success of such projects depends very much on the quality and quantity of water that flows through the reach. This is where S&TC compliments such work since it addresses the bigger picture and does so, unlike many other conservation organisations, without any Government (or its agencies’) funding.
Look what S&TC did on the upper Itchen in 2014. After years of discussions on the negative impact of phosphates (P) on the river there was a distinct lack of action. S&TC decided enough was enough and bought, at considerable expense, its own water sampling equipment, which took daily samples that were independently analysed by Southampton University. The results revealed high levels of P and, in particular, spikes that had previously gone undetected by the EA – they sample only once a month. That data was then used to influence the cress industry and the EA to implement a maximum target discharge level. Introduced in January this year S&TC is now monitoring compliance. Would this have happened without S&TC intervention with scientific evidence? I doubt it. Should S&TC have to do its own independent monitoring? No, but someone has to police it.
One can argue monitoring is the responsibility of the EA and of course it is, but successive cuts backs has left it unable to effectively carry out its duties. Unacceptable? Of course it is.
This is on the upper Itchen last May – it is an image of a chemcatcher S&TC uses to detect chemicals in the river. When it was installed it was encased in a shiny metal container but this growth occurred in just two weeks! If this does not suggest immediate awareness and attention I do not know what does.
Turning to the specific question of fly life I am sure we can’t over stress its importance. Part of the food chain, it is not only food for fish but also birds and certain mammals. Unlike the coarse angler who induces fish to feed by introducing free offerings, fly fisherman rely on nature to do this for us. It is therefore vital there is an abundance of invertebrates not only to sustain the fish (and other life forms) but also to add to the fisherman’s experience and enjoyment.
Individual species of invertebrates vary in their resilience to certain stresses and in particular the BWO and Iron Blue populations, once common and of great interest to anglers, have reduced considerably as a result of siltation. Do we turn a blind eye? I have underwater video from a number of locations which show the problems. I believe honesty is required to counter the rhetoric coming out of Government, otherwise how are we going to get the message home, particularly when television is also misleading the public with programmes such a Springwatch and Countryfile focusing on chocolate box images.
I know S&TC would very much like to be aware of sites on the Test and Itchen where there are abundant populations of BWO and Iron Blue. If anyone is aware of any please let me know so they can be promoted to highlight best practice.
30th May 2016″
