Open letter from J Craddock to Mr Timmis.

Dear Michael, I can’t recall you answering many of the points I made either, but since you asked for my views here goes.

In order to put this lame dog of a story out of it’s misery, I’ll tell you what I think the good bits of WUF’s work are, and there aren’t that many.

1. I agree to WUF’s drain blocking. Not because it will necessarily help the river, but because it will help restore the ecological vandalism of the 1970’s.  I think WUF would probably agree that farmers are the biggest countryside vandals of the lot. In essence, during the early to mid 1970’s, upland hill farmers in mid Wales applied to the Government of the day for “fairer” subsidies from the Min of Agriculture to drain marshland for grain production.(remember the grain mountains?) This resulted in a wholesale taxpayer funded draining of an ecological resource which had for centuries served as a “sponge” to leach water back to the rivers. These were called Upland Drainage Schemes, and driven in part by the useless EU Common Agricultural Policy. I won’t bore you with the whys and wherefores here.  The result was disastrous for all wildlife, and these super highway ditches impacted on the streams and rivers, scouring out the natural habitat for fish. The NRA called them “River Improvement Schemes. Oh yeah? This environment still hasn’t recovered 45 years on. I know all this because I wrote about it in 1977 when I was a freelance journalist for a newspaper group, so I can give you chapter and verse on the subject. Anyway, a big TICK for these efforts, and de-acidification too.

2. Litter picking. I keep my own stretch of the river free of all kinds of crap. Most users of the river, canoeists especially, don’t give a damn. Out of sight and out of mind. However Marsh-Smith (the Marsh bit is a something of a coincidence don’t you think given my remarks above?) told me a couple of years ago that 60% (more or less) of the detritus they collected was agricultural (see above again). Fertiliser bags, black polythene etc. The latter I often find festooned in the willow trees after a flood. So for clearing up the banks WUF get’s another big TICK. (though it’s fair to say gillies would have done a lot of this, were there any fish around for them to have been be gainfully employed)

3. Removal of blockages for fish passes. This is undoubtedly helpful, but some blockages actually may not be blockages at all, since the right water level is essential for fish to move through. So a smallish TICK on this. But where’s the evidence that it’s worked?

4. Fencing and coppicing. OK up to a point, BUT how much of this requires on going maintenance, and how much of this has been negated by new growth? It must be, by it’s very nature, an on going effort, so I’m not sure what TICK to put here, so I’ll give it a medium one. Once again, where’s the evidence that this has worked?

Now the bad bits.

1. WUF has been in business for 17 years and spent something in the order I believe of £14m. The rod catch is a third of what it was at it’s inception. Is that a measure of success? Step forward Lord Sugar.

2. As far as I’m aware it has a staff of 27 and a wage bill in excess £550,000 pa. It might have come down a bit since “Dai the Passport Scheme Man” has gone. Jumped or pushed? Maybe a sabbatical? Wanna tell us?

3. I don’t believe for one minute that WUF ever believed in hatcheries. The Painscastle hatchery, funded by the owners, was abandoned. The kit is still there. What a waste eh? I did hear that WUF allegedly had to pay the guy out of the lease but it was done rather quietly. Anyway, the improvements on habitat restoration might have been useful, assuming we had fish running to take advantage of it. Who knows? I don’t, but the hatchery might have provided the supplementary fish we needed.

4. All alternative points of view expressed by anglers or owners seem to me to be dismissed or ignored out of hand. My views are a case in point, and have caused howls of protest from you and Patrick. All I’m trying to do here is ask pertinent questions. You should be embracing alternative opinions not shouting them down.

5. There is too much secrecy, which is why this cosy arrangement between WUF and WSFOA needs some transparency. Tell me will you how many owners are actually current paid up members of the WSFOA? And then tell me how many owners/leaseholders there on the river in total? I’d very much like to know the % of those who are in and those who are not. At the last AGM I went to three years ago, I got an idea that it was less than 30%. who were paid up members. Gone down a bit no doubt, since one or two have cleared off recently. (including myself). Hardly representative is it? If this is true, (do enlighten me will you?) it means 70% + who have an interest in this river are not on side or involved. 30% is a derisory figure. There is no way WSFOA can justifiably claim to be working for the owners.

6. I wonder how many owners would continue to support the WSFOA financially were it not for “barbel money” coming in from the passport scheme. I let part of my beat so I reckon I’m doing my bit!....though in the light of all this I may well pull the plug on it next season...... but there is an inherent conflict at work here between the salmon anglers and the coarse anglers, and the aims of both are wholly incompatible.

7. The recent enthusiasm for SNR as a WSFOA project, and felt by many of us as a way forward, has been snuffed out. I doubt there was a better way of demotivating those of us who put in time, effort, and money to making it happen. That we weren’t backed or fought for is a treasonable offence as far as I’m concerned. For your information, I’m about £1000 out of pocket for the legal fees I personally underwrote and paid for to prepare the leases for the owners of the intended SNR ponds. (and not a word of thanks from you or Patrick Darling either). I perceive you as Chairman, of blindly following WUF ambitions, rather than making a stand. WSFOA has nailed it’s colours to the mast of an organisation who will ride roughshod over any other point of view. I’m genuinely surprised you can’t see it, and it’s undermined all credibility within what’s left of this shambolic Association.  Which is why I told you in no uncertain terms that these issues urgently need addressing before you dare to call for unity.

That’s enough I think for now.

For the future: I referred to a root and branch overhaul. As a policy the WSFOA should seek to involve better qualified people with specialist skills to be brought in. It also needs business people who are rigorous in their questioning and have an ability to decide if a project is viable or not. Above all it needs unequivocal transparency, and a massive expansion in the membership  The key players who might have brought a fresh approach have gone. Boat rockers need to be embraced, as I alluded to above. That way is progress, rather than dismissing them as an irritation. If this Association expanded it’s membership to take on all comers who own the river, (I’ve already mentioned dropping the SF) and came up with a few ideas of their own, these could be put to and funded by the membership as separate projects. The money generated could then be specifically targeted to those projects which the members endorse, and perhaps willingly fund. As for WUF?  We shall see, but I somehow think they have outgrown WSFOA and will no doubt hold hands with the NRW as time progresses. I guess the WSFOA will end up with a redundancy package from them, but it won’t amount to much. I hope I’m wrong, but time will tell.

I’m at an end with any further correspondence. If you wish to reply, feel free, but I’ve wasted enough of my time on this.

Kind regards

John

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stephen Marsh Smith letter to John Cradock

John

I have no wish to prolong this nonsense as you are too busy to research what you write, merely regurgitating WSA/RWGA nonsense, may I ask the following?

1.       Why do you include 14 years of fishery sales in the total we have spent on restoration

2.       Why also do you include what we have spent on the Usk?

3.       Why do you not refer to our 2000 driftnet and Putcher buy out as making a contribution to salmon restoration.

4.       Ditto the acid waters restoration

5.       Ditto he soon to be announced Abstraction regimen changes

You ask for evidence of fish pass success, please run the sequence of PP slides.

Stephen

RWGA Comment;

Not sure what RWGA nonsense he is referring to here. Typically it  would have been impossible to mention everything in a single such as this letter never mind the abstraction regime changes which we don't know about yet but which apparently are already being hailed as a success?

As for the PP slides attached.  Own Scheme, own data primariliy, no peer review.  Of course it's a success..

As for the money its been spent one way or another.   Oh and he did mention the de acidification scheme didn't he.

Nothing changes does it