Having seen the latest utterances by the WUF Director and his Deputy I have to ask again.     If SMS and Simon Evans are so adamant that stocking and the SNR pond project might be dangerous to the Wye, WHY HAVE THEY BEEN ENGAGED IN SIMILAR HATCHERY AND STOCKING PROCEEDURES FOR THE PAST 15 YEARS WITHOUT ANY OF THE CHECKS AND BALANCES SUCH AS IMPOSED ON THE CURRENT SNR PROJECT.,. IF THIS IS WHAT THEY BELIEVED IT SHOWS THEM TO BE TOTALLY IMMORAL AND IGNORED IT FOR THEIR OWN CHARITES FINANCIAL AND PERSONAL POLITICAL PURPOSES. IN WHICH CASE SURELY THEY SHOULD BE FORCED TO RESIGN. I WILL BE CONTACTING THE CHARITY COMMISSIONERS TO THIS EFFECT. Anyone wishing to put their signatures to this please let me know.

Contact me at uskside1@tiscali.co.uk or o1497 821889


This from Mr Marsh Smith;
"The Habitats Directive (Article 6) require proof that no damage will occur to the 'site' before any proposed action takes place. Stocking of salmon into SAC rivers (Wye Usk Dee Tywi Teifi etc) should in theory and in practice require proof that it doesnt cause damage as you suggest. Previously it has always been assumed that rearing fish cause no damage; current evidence shows otherwise. I wonder if salmon stoocking into SAC rivers will continue?


This from Simon Evans.

Taking fish on through a hatchery and SNR bypasses all the freshwater checks.

Whilst failure of hatchery fish is a waste wild broodstock, time, money and effort, the primary genetic risk of a hatchery is that if it is highly successful and ends up creating a lot of fish that are good at surviving in the marine phase but less good at the freshwater phase, which then interbreed with the wild stock and pass on their unwanted traits, weakening the next generation. ‘Boldness’ for example is a variable hereditary trait (like hair loss in humans) that in hatcheries creates the best and strongest parr, but in most wild situations gets you eaten! 

The height of Hypochrisy!!!!!!!!!!!!