Today.
6 fish from Wyesham today. 3 to gillie Ray Morris, one to owner Mike Timmis
One to Nick James on fly and another to Somerset Moore. All others on spinner. Mostly sea liced fish.
15lb fish from the Spreadeagle to Louie Macdonald Ames/Fly.
Some interesting responses to the EA initiative on diseased fish.
Dear Mr Gamble,
My apologies for not getting
back to you sooner. I have seen your response to Stuart Smith which you
omitted to copy to me but Stuart Smith was kind, and efficient enough, to pass
to me as an interested party.
Your advice, attached for those
who have not seen it, goes some way to answering the queries in my
original e-mail and your guidance on how to handle these kind of incidents is a
step forward albeit one which needs more clarification.
I note that you say the fish was
stored appropriately but in an earlier e-mail there was a statement that it had
been frozen and would likely not be a useful specimen for analysis of the
presence of UDN. Which was it?
Secondly the idea that a fish
reported to be in distress and left in the river would ever be found again,
particularly given your response time of circa 3-5 hours on this last occasion
when Mr Talbot phoned you, indicates you are not serious about recovering
seriously diseased fish for analysis. The photos of the fish Mr
Talbot recovered was not caught on a line, it was drifting backwards in a near
dead condition, and compared to the examples shown in your guidance was grossly
affected. To even the most inexpert observer it had no chance of
recovery. The last time I saw a fish in this condition on our water was
in 1976 in warm temperatures and low water conditions so I am not entirely
convinced by your low temperature argument. Low water seems a common
factor with perhaps a consequent concentration of pathogens?
In view of this and my
continuing uncertainty about your real interests, position on diseased fish I
would still like a formal response to my original questions set out below with
accompanying notes in blue:
Firstly whether you are interested in analysing
diseased fish/corpses or not for the purposes of identifying the cause of death
be it disease or pollution. If not why not? Your position that you want us to report but take no action and await
your response to the report indicates you are not serious about recovering fish
for analysis. The frozen/stored appropriately contradiction indicates you do
not have robust procedures well understood by your employees in place.
Please clarify your position.
Secondly whether we have a duty to report and where possible
secure corpses and near dead fish which are diseased for analysis. If we
are not to use a net to do this what method should be used. Your guidance refers to any fish does this include dead
ones or are you interested in corpses being recovered for analysis? I
also think that a diseased fish which in so much distress that it can be hand
netted in the shallows of the lower Wye main stem is unlikely to recover.
This is a different case from line caught fish with a small amount of
lesions.
Thirdly please tell me where the guidance on handling this
sort of incident is laid down by EA/NRW and are the respective actions required
consistent with one another? Also what steps you are going to take to
properly publicise this guidance. I am glad
to see that you have attempted to lay out guidance. It clearly did not
exist before. Does it have the agreement of NRW. However I find it
is insufficiently flexible to deal with the kind of case we had on the
Rocklands water. The position of the EA and its guidance seems to be more
concerned with making sure that anglers can be prosecuted for removing fish
from the river than sensibly managing the river. No angler would want to
eat a fish in this condition so why would they take it. There is a tricky
element of degree here but you should be able to find a form of words and a
policy to accommodate it if you are indeed serious about monitoring incidents
of this nature. Also once you have got your guidance in a clear and unambiguous
form, how do you propose to publicise it. Reporting fin clipped fish in
the Wye is another aspect that also needs publicising.
Fourthly whether you will commend Mr Talbot for his
responsible and time consuming actions to collect this sample for analysis.
He rang in at 1300 did exactly as he was told and waited for the corpse to be
collected at circa 1830. Less conscientious and helpful anglers
would have just pushed off having had to wait that long for a response, if they
bothered to use their initiative to recover a corpse in the first place. I have yet to see proper fulsome thanks for Mr Talbot’s
actions in raising both this matter and general awareness of the lack of
guidance on this subject.
Fifthly, I should also note for the record that Dougal
Ziegler ‘s efforts were of an exemplary and competent nature if a little slow
in response. What is your target for attending at what could be a
pollution/disease related incident? On a weekday, circa 5 hours, as I
understand it, seems rather long. Are you satisfied your response
procedures are sufficiently speedy, efficient and robust? See my earlier comments as to the chances of a response
finding a fish 2-3 hours after it has been reported. Keeping the fish in a
condition suitable for analysis. I would still be interested to hear how
your monitoring response system works, and targets for time to attend incidents
such as this, in order to gain some confidence you have the resources and
motivation to implement the kind of response suggested by your guidance.
Hopefully addressing these
questions and answering them in a straightforward way will lead to a sensible
and workable policy for dealing with these kind of incidents in future. I
do not believe your current proposals and guidance are adequate or clear
enough. If the real reason for the lack of clarity is that you do not
have the manpower to deal with this aspect of river management on the Wye then
there may be merit in a meeting to discuss how WUF, WSA and WSFOA might be able
to help in monitoring disease in the river and trapping diseased fish in a live
condition for examination.
Yours sincerely
John Pearson
Dear Mr Gamble,
I am very disappointed and concerned with the integrity of
your response. It is extremely inadequate for a Government body presenting a
preliminary report of a laboratory analysis in that it uses self protecting
phraseology, contains contradictions amounting to nonsense, ignores evidence
sent to you for the analysis, and proposes a diagnosis.
I note that you use self protecting phrases such as
"stored appropriately", "our experts",
"complicated" and "cannot be confirmed", and that you
present the laughable phrase that the Environment Agency laboratory found it
was "not possible to carry out... a post mortem examination" because
the fish was "dead on arrival" : nonsense.
This fish was taken away by your collecting officer without
any ice being used in its storage, then later it was frozen, which you state is
a reason why you cannot confirm any cause of death, yet you describe its
collection and storage as "appropriate" : contradiction. I will quote
your earlier email "Our
scientists have made us aware that as the fish was dead, and had been frozen,
it is unlikely they will be able to provide any conclusive results on the
presence of UDN." Your bungling staff have
therefore destroyed the opportunity for definitive analysis by inappropriate
handling and storage of the sample. Again, sir : contradiction, after the
setting up of a scenario that avoids a conclusion.
You make no mention of the many close up photographs I sent
to you as evidence showing both the fish and its lesions in the water, and when
immediately placed on the bank, that amply demonstrate its condition when alive
in detail. Had the fish been alive at the laboratory there is no more that
could have been seen beyond what is presented in these 16 images : ignorance of
presented data.
In addition to the corpse being present in the laboratory
these images provide ample opportunity for visual appraisal which, whilst UDN
or a bacterial infection "cannot be confirmed" you state due to
"death" and "freezing" by EA staff, you have introduced the
laughable suggestion that the "poor condition" of the fish was due to
it "returning [to the river] to spawn again". If that was true there
would be an awful lot of salmon in that same "poor condition" ie.
rotting alive and unable to swim, as you should be aware that ALL salmon return
to rivers to spawn : your proposed diagnosis is non scientific and nonsense,
and ignores the pathogen that was affecting the fish.
When UDN was last diagnosed in the Wye did that diagnosis
require for confirmation the analysis of live specimens, or was it apparent by
the presence of living, rotting fish with lesions? Please provide your response
attaching the analysis that concluded the last occurrence.
I, along with all salmon anglers, do not want to see UDN.
You, sir, as the Government body responsible for the management of the River
Wye and its salmon stock, appear to not want to see UDN. However, you have a
responsibility to see it when it is there, and safeguard against it should it
look likely.
I ask you to amend your recent statement sent to WSA, WUF,
WSFOA etc.
Regards,
Steve Roberts.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.