Tweet
below are the points and questions I raised with Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservancy Council and DEFRA, after the local NE office ignored my e mail. NE had said there where no problems caused by the closure of Budle Bay, I got that info. They also said there where no over eagre wardens, I gave them examples. After the points I raised, sorry they are a bit long winded, is my e mail to Anthony Hynes (DEFRA) with my feelings about the meeting.
Stakeholder concerns and communication mechanisms for the English Marine Conservation Zones project
To help us identify the best means of communicating details of the England MCZ project to your organisation and your wider sector can you please answer questions one and two and send them back to me by the 20th February 2009 so that we can take them into account when creating our Communication strategy:
As this process only went to a limited few anglers who knew nothing about MCZ’s, and because of lack of, or no information given prior to the questionnaire, the process should be done again and sent to all federations or maybe handed out to clubs for filling in during local meetings, after knowing the implications that possibly could take place. All anglers should have been part of this process. Many Federations may not have the same thoughts as others about the questionnaire because of local circumstance, and the NFSAS would also like to see all mention of bait digging removed, until MCZ’s are proposed. This point, see below needs clarifying, as answers to questions seem to contradict each other
1/ Why do you need to know about all the areas anglers use for bait digging, as many of these may not be included in MCZs?
2/ Why do you not wait until MCZs are designated and then get the information if anglers use that MCZ for anything?
All I would like to say is that you should scrap the survey and go about the whole business by getting anglers info when and where needed, there is no need for all the information you are asking for
1. As I mentioned on the phone - the MCZs are unlikely to significantly effect bait digging, as they are likely to be predominantly in sub tidal areas. However some may be in intertidal. So if you wanted you could disclose the whereabouts of the bait digging beds only if it looked as if a MCZ was going to be designated in that area.
2. If we designated sites first and then asked people what they do there - it will be too late for them to influence the location of the site - so effectively if the MCZ is on a prime angling location and its designation results in restrictions on activities then anglers would have to effectively live with this. If they are involved at the beginning when the location and the size of the sites are being decided upon then they can influence where they are and make a case to potentially avoid a prime angling spot being designated - or conversely make a case for it to be included as a way to protect it from other activities.
Q if anglers follow this, will this then mean you are scrapping the survey and then ask for the information required from anglers when the siteing of an MCZ could be made?
Q if MCZ’s are going to be predominately sub tidal, why does Natural England need so much information about inter tidal areas, just in case will not be accepted as an answer.
1) What are the major concerns you may have about the project to date as well as possible future concerns
i) The loss of ownership in terms of how the RSA sectors use an area.
Comment: We recognize the principle and possible benefits of the MCZ and that there may be a need in some case to create a Highly Protected Marine Reserve. To allay our fears we would hope that the limiting of access could be kept to a minimum
The NFSAS's response is there should be no restrictions on bait collecting, in fact closed areas should be opened up to alleviate problems caused by ban/restrictions in other areas.
Affects of restricting/banning/ bait digging, and loss of bait North East examples
Bait digging was banned at Budle Bay, the biggest worm bed in the North East where 80% of North East anglers, including the commercial diggers, although frowned upon are a necessary evil, got their bait. Natural Trust and Natural England then English Nature where warned of the consequences, that North East anglers needed bait and would go elsewhere. English Nature’s reply, that’s not our problem, it’s their problem. This also had an impact at Newton Haven with an unwanted increase in bait diggers. Mentioned in Northumberland ANOB
And for all you that believe in global warning, just think of all those anglers travelling all those extra miles, causing all that extra CO2 emissions.
Evidence of problems caused by displaced North East anglers since closure of Budle Bay
Name and exact locations of bait beds removed
With regard to the bait-digging thing, they are everywhere. Most of certain bait beds have been destroyed, while the productive lug beaches on the east, west and even highland coasts are taking a continual pounding from diggers/anglers from the north east of England. There is another team of North East bait diggers working beaches as far north as Cromarty and Dornoch.
I have also heard of a team of commercial diggers working on the Isle of Skye to supply NE anglers
There is a definite increase in the numbers of bait diggers from the N.East of England and this has caused some friction in the past.
Lochryan S.A.A. has the rights to bait beds on Lochryan in trust from Stair Estate and ultimately from the Crown.
We police digging up to a point and have policy where an angler/s can dig what we consider to be a reasonable amount for a days fishing (approx 100 worms each), this is up to our discretion.
The local Police can and will step in if a situation requires it but this very rarely happens.
The situation in Luce Bay however is different as we have no control there and "professonal",digging can get out of hand.
Kircudbright/Luce Bay
Hi alan sorry I haven't checked emails for a long time, sorry to say it but yes for many years now we have encountered on many numbers of lads from the north east coming over here and digging our beds to nothing, and as for the crabbing on our beaches its the same, I read one of your emails commenting on some bait diggers on a beach shouting, swearing and dogs running loose and also something about staying on and looking through peoples gardens. We have the same problem over here, loud, swearing, littering no respect to the locals and no respect to the beaches. If they leave the beaches down there the same way they do ours no wonder this is happening.
Obviously anglers travelling a fair way will dig more worms than they would locally to make their trip worthwhile.
Loss of bait
Sea Bait has now reduced the production of ragworms to tackle shops by 50%
Natural England then English Nature in their wisdom along with DEFRA, Blyth Harbour Commission (who where paid for it) decided to let a great big dredger come into the Blyth Estuary and sweep up all the mussels, in the process of dredging up the mussel it also took off the top 4-6” of mud, so what you might think, but that top sediment held the masses of ragworm that replenished the areas that anglers dug along the waters edge. Hence a great loss of bait, but still enough for the angler who only wanted a few for a day out, but to the serious angler, he had to go elsewhere, one of the main places was on the West Coast of Scotland.
In any other industry the person would be sacked, not in Natural England he is now quite high up the ladder.
A bit of ironic history about the Blyth Estuary, I spent many a happy time with my grandfather and uncles collecting bait, fishing, and generally about the wildlife at Blyth. At that time the estuary was a wasteland of stinking mud and rubbish, and hardly a bird in site. Then anglers started putting traps out, mainly tyres and some of the decent rubbish, the rest was thrown onto the banks or left to be swallowed up by the mud, where somebody used to clear it away, presume the council. Quite a clean up operation. Then they started planting out the mussels, no more than the rivers eel trapper, who unfortunately is no longer with us. And along the birds started to appear, taking the crabs out of anglers traps and the weed and mussels that encased the traps, mind this did take a good few years. As the numbers of birds increased, the bird watchers came and started putting up hides. And then what happened the bird watchers now complain because anglers keep getting in front of their binoculars, you can’t win.
Just a little bit about bait traps, a well known North East angler had tyre traps along with others in another estuary, while collecting bait one day, and official looking gent was wandering round. He asked the gent if they where going to remove the traps. The gent replied you must be joking, they are stopping all the erosion under the riverbanks and saving us a fortune.
And to be justified on accurate scientific data and clear objectives We have had difficult experiences defending sensible levels of bait digging and angler presence against flawed beliefs about the impact of people on beaches and mud flats.
After helping many students and marine biologists from Newcastle University with their studies in various projects including bait digging, The NFSAS would dispute the findings of any survey into bait digging that did not use those who regularly dig bait, the sea angler.
Reasons why
First and foremost, the students have no idea how to dig bait, and where they think there is none, there is many, giving them the implication, anglers have dug the area out.
They do not realise other factors that are involved, such as rainwater, there is no good going digging in torrential rain, sea worms do not like fresh water and will dig down so they are under sea level. Most to far down for most bait diggers. In a study I helped with we went to a beach in Hartlepool that is well know for big lugworm, the day we went it was chucking it down, not a single trace in site. At another bed we visited where run off water went down the beach, there was not a single cast near the fresh water.
The movement of worms from summer to winter, in one study over a period of time we watched a good sized worm bed from summer to winter, loads of worms during summer, not many in the winter. A casual observer or student might think it had been dug out. Thing is only two or three locals use this bed for bait and very infrequently.
They could also go at the wrong stage of the ebb, if they go when the bait beds are just starting to be uncovered, the sediment is still watery and not much goods for digging bait, unfortunately many sea anglers also do this and when they don’t get many worms, they also say, it’s been dug out. However of you wait until the tide has receded and the sediment dry, you get plenty of worms. Funny how many say the worm bed is dug out, but there are still worms there year after year.
The fact that not all lugworm make their presence clear, as most think all lugworm leave casts, they don’t. On one of the best lugworm beds in Northumberland for really big worm, they leave no trace to the untrained eye.
Just a little comment on anglers digging bait beds out, remember anglers only want bait for pleasure fishing. But lets go back many years when inshore fishermen used long lines, and each day they would put a line out with many hundreds of hooks on, and where did many get their bait from day after day after day, the local bait bed, you would think they would have dug then out, but no they are still their, healthy as ever.
Producers of information into the effects of bait digging can get over zealous with their writing against anglers that they quite often contradict themselves. I was once given a study written by a professor BSC etc, when discussing the Tees estuary. He made some glaring errors in his statements, the biggest being, that he said, on a certain date bait digging was banned at Budle Bay, a couple of chapters later when discussing another matter he said the bait beds where dug out by such and such a date. Only thing was anglers where banned from digging there about five years before he said it was dug out, OOOOPPSS.
And of course they wouldn’t have any financial motive for getting bait digging banned would they. Except for the Marine Biologist who gave a damming report about bait diggers in the public enquiry about Budle bay, one of Natural England’s prize witnesses was disgraced when it was pointed out to the Chair that he was a director of Sea Bait, mind he hadn’t told Natural England either, what a shock they got, well that’s what they said, funny how everybody in the north east knew except Natural England. And of course those being paid by an organisation wouldn’t be slightly biased in their favour, well if they were not they might not get further PAID work from that organisation.
General comment
When it comes to the designation of MCZ’s in other parts of the country, if a VOLUNTARY permit system was introduced where displaced North East anglers dig, and only locals get them, where would North East anglers then go. And of course the unlucky anglers who do not get a permit. This could happen anywhere. I will come onto permits later.
ii) Abiding by the voluntary and statutory mechanisms put in place to ensure sustainable seas
Comment: This requirement must be observed by all stakeholders, including external stakeholders who may deem a right of access under the CFP. There must be a clearly defined area properly signed both on and offshore. The occasional visitor to an area must be aware of the existence of the MCZ. In particular where there are local rules e.g. limited access to an RSPB site during the mating season. These must be clearly communicated.
When an area is defined out at sea as a MCZ how can you ensure nobody enters this area. Many boats now have GPS systems, but there are still many that don’t, and I am sure you won’t be putting a ring of dans around it.
iii) What information and advice on which to base a decision to create a MCZ.
Comment: The sources identified for the collection of the Data are many and varied. Each will have their own specific agenda for creating their database. We must have a cohesive interagency approach in adopting the data for each separate MCZ.
iv) Getting the balance right for stake holder’s interest.
Comment: There has to be a level playing field and no group should have any bias in their favour. The over-arching principle has to try to be as inclusive as possible, not exclusive.
If it does not detrimentally affect the objectives of an MCZ, an activity should be permitted.
Natural England will find any excuse possible to find something they say is detrimental to the MCZ if a bait digging area is within a MCZ.
The NFSAS’s experience with Natural England is that they can not be unbiased about bait digging/fishing, if it is up to them then I can tell you now two areas that they will want to be included in a MCZs now, Boulmer and Newton Haven (leased by National Trust). As both these areas are mentioned in the Northumberland Coast AONB
Which brings me nicely onto the over exuberance of those on the front line the little Hitler warden. NE & NT etc at the top may not advocate the stopping of bait digging sites where it goes on legitimately, but some of the wardens whether they have been asked or told to try and deter anglers from digging by middle management, or they have taken it upon their selves to try and protect their patch. These wardens can at times be over exuberant in their job. One warden in his exuberance to stop people digging bait, obviously not being a ware of what he was doing in his trance like state, drove a land rover at high speed at a digger, standing not far from a wall, jumped out and started yelling at the angler telling the angler he couldn’t dig bait. He was very brave doing this to an old aged pensioner who was in that much shock he had to be taken straight home and given a few strong drinks. I would have prosecuted him, but he was lucky the PENSIONER didn’t want to take it any further.
The same warden has also told many anglers that they could not dig where they are. I spoke to him after the police had been brought to chase anglers, this on an area where no bait digging restrictions are in force, and told him to stop it and in future before he asks anglers to leave, tell them he has no legal right to move you, but I would like you to do so. Had no complaints since.
The same warden at a meeting had quite a few of my press cuttings where I had blasted him for his actions. He was practically in tears because he could not reply to the story. I replied that, write a letter or phone the paper and I am sure they would put it in the letter page. But before you do that could you give me the titles of all the magazines i.e. anti anglers weekly, or twicthers delight, where articles slang off anglers for bait digging, so we could reply to those. He never sent his complaint.
Another warden used to keep telling anglers at another area that they also can’t dig, where they are entitled to in a clearly defined area.
Heaven forbid that he never had anything to do with the incidents of tyre slashing that happened at the same area. It is funny that of all the cars parked in the area, which attracts many visitors, that only anglers tyres where slashed. Odd though, that at meetings about bait digging, he bragged that he had the registrations of all the anglers that dig that area and where they come from. This ended after an angler was threatened with a knife, when he caught a guy slashing tyres, and I went to the papers with the story. The lad was so traumatised he has, as far as I know not been back, and was too scared to go to the police.
2) What communication mechanisms would be most appropriate for us to provide information to your organisation and the sector you represent? For example, is there a particular publication you have which updates of the MCZ project could be written in?
1) Newsletters and minutes made available
Comment: This is admirable providing that the organization can keep it current
2) Website important to make people feel included
Comment: This has to be a controlled Website. The majority of websites provide the vociferous minority with a platform on which to air their personal views. This can generate negative opinion which is not countered and consequently influences the opinion of others who are less informed. A controlled site provides the organization with the ability to counter any negative comments and reinforce the policy statement.
The NFSAS response to (2) is that a website controlled by one organisation can be used to put only their views over and could deprive someone from having his point heard, freedom of speech comes to mind.
USING AT as an example, hope they don’t mind
Information should not just be kept on an AT website, information of all meetings should be
given to all stakeholders and spread as far as possible by web sites. This as I have proven with my postings of talk’s e mails etc with committee members has started good dialogue amongst anglers, although some of it has been very emotive. An AT website controlled by AT could end with what they deemed negative posts being omitted and posts by what AT would deem the ill-informed be omitted. If the ill informed are not corrected they will still be the ill informed, these are the people you need to get to. We just do not want the views of AT, which many do not agree with, which could happen with a controlled web site. Obviously any personal attacks, and fowl language would not be tolerated.
3) Interactive website for feedback opportunities
Comment: As at 2) above.
4. The AT website could have a page set up to hold MCZ information. A good start would be the briefing note you distributed with this request for response,
Comment: A new site in its infancy but is being regularly updated so can display current topics to a mass audience expeditiously.
Important also that angler’s not accessible to the net should be kept informed via angling mags etc. This should have been done from the start.
General comment
Everything should be done on a voluntary basis and we should all work together for the best of the foreshore. Unfortunately, from what I have gleaned so far I fear that this will never happen. Commercial fishermen could lose fishing areas, both boat and shore anglers could loose bait digging/fishing areas. But what is Natural England going to put into the pot, nothing I would imagine, but they could possibly be gaining areas where they can put restrictions. As one of the items on the agenda is,
Anglers and Marine Conservation Zones: a partnership approach to achieving marine conservation (JD/AJ)
Believe a partnership means sharing.
The effects of the Anderson V Alnwick District Council
This case had two real outcomes that effected anglers
1/ The High Court Judgement proved anglers had the right of fisheries which is enshrined in the Magna Carta, great we won, yes it has prevented many more bait digging bans being put in place by Natural England, unless they go to great expense
2/ Unfortunately, there was a down side to this, before the case very few anglers knew about Boulmer and only dug there on big tides so they could get the better worms. Of course Alnwick DC must of felt sure they would win as they had maps etc in the papers of where Boulmer was, they lost, and every numpty angler in the North East now knew where top anglers got their bait and the problem, which can not be stopped, is much greater that it was. And as I have already said, that I believe Natural England will try and use the MCZ designation process to stop bait digging there.
This brings me onto the CEFAS survey
Anglers do not want to, and from the information I have, will not give the locations of bait beds for this reason. Many small beds, which are now appearing with the clean up of beaches in certain areas, have been nurtured by anglers who take only what they need, and their wished should be respected and any future survey should not contain questions regarding worm beds.
A general comment about the survey, Natural England have tried all ways to get this information for years, and I believe they are just using the MCZ designation process to get this information.
Has this anything to do with the Intertidal review of intertidal areas, which could take place next year? Quote by Rob Blythe-Skerne back in June 2008 “I think that intertidal features are then going to be reviewed next year, but all this work will include the North Northumberland part of the SAC”
If information is required about fish catches, and North East anglers are in agreement there is no need for a survey as I myself will probably have enough to satisfy any survey requirements, and back up what anglers have said already, catches are now the worst they have ever been in the North East.
Permits
In my telephone conversation it was said there could be a possibility of permits being needed to dig/fish at certain places. Suppose anglers VOLUNATRILY agreed to a permit system,
Who would get these permits, would it be locals or would it be a national one. Would there be a charge?
Problems this would cause, using the North East as an example
If only locals where eligible for a permit in MCZ designated areas away from the north east, north east anglers could be stopped from digging there and having to move elsewhere, again causing aggravation which I have already mentioned. Most anglers at times do go to different locations around the country for various types of bait, it is a sport that needs various types of bait, depending on the type of fishing and species an angler is after. And what about when anglers are on holiday or long weekend fishing trips at far off destinations.
If anglers VOLUNTARILLY accepted a permit, would this also apply to bird watchers, using the same area? If not, why not.
Problems for Federation committees
Again using NE clubs as an example, being a federation with a large area, due to the displaced NE anglers, who now have to go to other parts for their bait, this has caused friction between anglers from member clubs who are in the NFSAS, obviously, the committee can not take sides. This is another reason why it is important to have local meetings.
OTHER POINTS
DEFRA’s figures regarding the responses to the RSA and Article 47 are very misleading, at first it appears that there was very little interest shown. But going by the NFSAS membership figures to me DEFRA must have counted a response from the NFSAS and other Federations and clubs, who put in a response on behalf of their members, as a single response, having a membership well over the 470 responses to the RSA strategy, and 1,5000 responses to Article 47. In fact three of our member clubs, who put a response in have almost 900 members between them.
LOCAL MEETINGS
All is going well with spreading the word. The NFSAS has contacted all the Federations local representatives, NEBF, SAMF, AT, no doubt their national representatives will also want to attend. Also representatives of the charter skippers from the Blyth, Tyne, & Amble has made expressed a wish to attend, I would expect that more would also express a wish to attend. Many clubs, not only NFSAS affiliated clubs have expressed a wish to attend. I have expressed upon clubs that only two club members should attend, even though there whole membership may wish two. The reason for two is, if they were to be more than one meeting, if one could not attend, this would keep the continuity going. I would like again to emphasise the NFSAS’s point that all bodies that wish to attend should be allowed to, and not just a selected few, you need to get the whole picture.
Alan Charlton
Press Sec NFSAS
Anthony Hynes
DEFRA
Re MCZ meeting 3rd April
This is the first time I have been able to contact you having just returned from short break away during which I attended the meeting on 3rd April which entailed a round trip of 280 mile. You did e mail me earlier asking if there was anything you could do I should let you know, I replied that I was expecting Jamie Davies to answer the points I had raised with the local NE, which where ignored and would give him the chance to. I now find the need to approach you direct. If this gets the NFSAS nowhere then I would imagine the next step will be our MEP, think he might be interested in why the process is stalling. Unfortunately I found the meeting at Birmingham a total waste of my time, as you know from the meeting the JNCC and NE refused to answer any of the points that I raised sent to them weeks beforehand, suspect they had got their heads together beforehand to decide what to do. The JNCC and NE where more interested into trying to persuade the angling bodies represented there that the MCZ designation was the greatest thing since sliced bread for anglers and we should go away and extol the virtues of the MCZ's to our members. Yes I did say I could pass the information on to all my contacts, but not until questions are answered, and also that they themselves should come and tell the anglers, it is not our job to do their work. To those who have only just started attending meetings with NE and the like, along with the, this is a wonderful partnership to be involved in, and we want to be open and build bridges after what has happened in the past sounds very good. However, to someone like myself and the other angling bodies present, who have attended many meetings in the past with NE it is just the same old rhetoric we have heard over and over again. I had come with the intention to have a real go at NE about the contradicting answers I had received from Audrey Jones, her condition prevented me from doing so, as I did not want a happy event to come sooner than expected. And as for their veiled threats, the first in my conversation with Audrey when she said if we did not co operate we might end up with nothing, and Jamie's threat that if we did not give the information about bait digging we could find the bait beds included in an MCZ. So what, if the JNCC and NE want to go down that route then you should look at the North East anglers track record, we have already forced one public enquiry and a North East angler went all the way to the Crown Court to prove the "right of fisheries". And they call this a partnership, if anglers have nothing to worry about, why will the JNCC and NE not answer the questions they are asked, truthfully that is. At the NFSAS AGM on the 16th, I will be proposing that we go off a statement made by Audrey Jones, when I asked will there be any bait digging or fishing bans within MCZ's she gave an emphatic NO, long before Audrey started contradicting herself, I will put that confusion down to her condition.
I also when I arrived home expected to have the minutes of the meeting, this should have been done straight away as they where typed straight onto a lap top and could have been e mailed out, or are the JNCC and NE going through them to see if there is any leading statements they have made that should not be in, like the one I asked Tom Bleasedale if he would put it into writing, which he said NO to. If that has been removed from the minutes then the NFSAS will know they have been altered and not a true record of the meeting. And also Audrey Jones also said she would send the results of the CEFAS survey which took place along the East and North East coast, still waiting.
In the future if the JNCC, NE, and DEFRA want to talk to the NFSAS, you will have to come to us, I certainly do not want another wasted journey to Birmingham.
yours sincerely
A.J. Charlton
Stakeholder concerns and communication mechanisms for the English Marine Conservation Zones project
To help us identify the best means of communicating details of the England MCZ project to your organisation and your wider sector can you please answer questions one and two and send them back to me by the 20th February 2009 so that we can take them into account when creating our Communication strategy:
As this process only went to a limited few anglers who knew nothing about MCZ’s, and because of lack of, or no information given prior to the questionnaire, the process should be done again and sent to all federations or maybe handed out to clubs for filling in during local meetings, after knowing the implications that possibly could take place. All anglers should have been part of this process. Many Federations may not have the same thoughts as others about the questionnaire because of local circumstance, and the NFSAS would also like to see all mention of bait digging removed, until MCZ’s are proposed. This point, see below needs clarifying, as answers to questions seem to contradict each other
1/ Why do you need to know about all the areas anglers use for bait digging, as many of these may not be included in MCZs?
2/ Why do you not wait until MCZs are designated and then get the information if anglers use that MCZ for anything?
All I would like to say is that you should scrap the survey and go about the whole business by getting anglers info when and where needed, there is no need for all the information you are asking for
1. As I mentioned on the phone - the MCZs are unlikely to significantly effect bait digging, as they are likely to be predominantly in sub tidal areas. However some may be in intertidal. So if you wanted you could disclose the whereabouts of the bait digging beds only if it looked as if a MCZ was going to be designated in that area.
2. If we designated sites first and then asked people what they do there - it will be too late for them to influence the location of the site - so effectively if the MCZ is on a prime angling location and its designation results in restrictions on activities then anglers would have to effectively live with this. If they are involved at the beginning when the location and the size of the sites are being decided upon then they can influence where they are and make a case to potentially avoid a prime angling spot being designated - or conversely make a case for it to be included as a way to protect it from other activities.
Q if anglers follow this, will this then mean you are scrapping the survey and then ask for the information required from anglers when the siteing of an MCZ could be made?
Q if MCZ’s are going to be predominately sub tidal, why does Natural England need so much information about inter tidal areas, just in case will not be accepted as an answer.
1) What are the major concerns you may have about the project to date as well as possible future concerns
i) The loss of ownership in terms of how the RSA sectors use an area.
Comment: We recognize the principle and possible benefits of the MCZ and that there may be a need in some case to create a Highly Protected Marine Reserve. To allay our fears we would hope that the limiting of access could be kept to a minimum
The NFSAS's response is there should be no restrictions on bait collecting, in fact closed areas should be opened up to alleviate problems caused by ban/restrictions in other areas.
Affects of restricting/banning/ bait digging, and loss of bait North East examples
Bait digging was banned at Budle Bay, the biggest worm bed in the North East where 80% of North East anglers, including the commercial diggers, although frowned upon are a necessary evil, got their bait. Natural Trust and Natural England then English Nature where warned of the consequences, that North East anglers needed bait and would go elsewhere. English Nature’s reply, that’s not our problem, it’s their problem. This also had an impact at Newton Haven with an unwanted increase in bait diggers. Mentioned in Northumberland ANOB
And for all you that believe in global warning, just think of all those anglers travelling all those extra miles, causing all that extra CO2 emissions.
Evidence of problems caused by displaced North East anglers since closure of Budle Bay
Name and exact locations of bait beds removed
With regard to the bait-digging thing, they are everywhere. Most of certain bait beds have been destroyed, while the productive lug beaches on the east, west and even highland coasts are taking a continual pounding from diggers/anglers from the north east of England. There is another team of North East bait diggers working beaches as far north as Cromarty and Dornoch.
I have also heard of a team of commercial diggers working on the Isle of Skye to supply NE anglers
There is a definite increase in the numbers of bait diggers from the N.East of England and this has caused some friction in the past.
Lochryan S.A.A. has the rights to bait beds on Lochryan in trust from Stair Estate and ultimately from the Crown.
We police digging up to a point and have policy where an angler/s can dig what we consider to be a reasonable amount for a days fishing (approx 100 worms each), this is up to our discretion.
The local Police can and will step in if a situation requires it but this very rarely happens.
The situation in Luce Bay however is different as we have no control there and "professonal",digging can get out of hand.
Kircudbright/Luce Bay
Hi alan sorry I haven't checked emails for a long time, sorry to say it but yes for many years now we have encountered on many numbers of lads from the north east coming over here and digging our beds to nothing, and as for the crabbing on our beaches its the same, I read one of your emails commenting on some bait diggers on a beach shouting, swearing and dogs running loose and also something about staying on and looking through peoples gardens. We have the same problem over here, loud, swearing, littering no respect to the locals and no respect to the beaches. If they leave the beaches down there the same way they do ours no wonder this is happening.
Obviously anglers travelling a fair way will dig more worms than they would locally to make their trip worthwhile.
Loss of bait
Sea Bait has now reduced the production of ragworms to tackle shops by 50%
Natural England then English Nature in their wisdom along with DEFRA, Blyth Harbour Commission (who where paid for it) decided to let a great big dredger come into the Blyth Estuary and sweep up all the mussels, in the process of dredging up the mussel it also took off the top 4-6” of mud, so what you might think, but that top sediment held the masses of ragworm that replenished the areas that anglers dug along the waters edge. Hence a great loss of bait, but still enough for the angler who only wanted a few for a day out, but to the serious angler, he had to go elsewhere, one of the main places was on the West Coast of Scotland.
In any other industry the person would be sacked, not in Natural England he is now quite high up the ladder.
A bit of ironic history about the Blyth Estuary, I spent many a happy time with my grandfather and uncles collecting bait, fishing, and generally about the wildlife at Blyth. At that time the estuary was a wasteland of stinking mud and rubbish, and hardly a bird in site. Then anglers started putting traps out, mainly tyres and some of the decent rubbish, the rest was thrown onto the banks or left to be swallowed up by the mud, where somebody used to clear it away, presume the council. Quite a clean up operation. Then they started planting out the mussels, no more than the rivers eel trapper, who unfortunately is no longer with us. And along the birds started to appear, taking the crabs out of anglers traps and the weed and mussels that encased the traps, mind this did take a good few years. As the numbers of birds increased, the bird watchers came and started putting up hides. And then what happened the bird watchers now complain because anglers keep getting in front of their binoculars, you can’t win.
Just a little bit about bait traps, a well known North East angler had tyre traps along with others in another estuary, while collecting bait one day, and official looking gent was wandering round. He asked the gent if they where going to remove the traps. The gent replied you must be joking, they are stopping all the erosion under the riverbanks and saving us a fortune.
And to be justified on accurate scientific data and clear objectives We have had difficult experiences defending sensible levels of bait digging and angler presence against flawed beliefs about the impact of people on beaches and mud flats.
After helping many students and marine biologists from Newcastle University with their studies in various projects including bait digging, The NFSAS would dispute the findings of any survey into bait digging that did not use those who regularly dig bait, the sea angler.
Reasons why
First and foremost, the students have no idea how to dig bait, and where they think there is none, there is many, giving them the implication, anglers have dug the area out.
They do not realise other factors that are involved, such as rainwater, there is no good going digging in torrential rain, sea worms do not like fresh water and will dig down so they are under sea level. Most to far down for most bait diggers. In a study I helped with we went to a beach in Hartlepool that is well know for big lugworm, the day we went it was chucking it down, not a single trace in site. At another bed we visited where run off water went down the beach, there was not a single cast near the fresh water.
The movement of worms from summer to winter, in one study over a period of time we watched a good sized worm bed from summer to winter, loads of worms during summer, not many in the winter. A casual observer or student might think it had been dug out. Thing is only two or three locals use this bed for bait and very infrequently.
They could also go at the wrong stage of the ebb, if they go when the bait beds are just starting to be uncovered, the sediment is still watery and not much goods for digging bait, unfortunately many sea anglers also do this and when they don’t get many worms, they also say, it’s been dug out. However of you wait until the tide has receded and the sediment dry, you get plenty of worms. Funny how many say the worm bed is dug out, but there are still worms there year after year.
The fact that not all lugworm make their presence clear, as most think all lugworm leave casts, they don’t. On one of the best lugworm beds in Northumberland for really big worm, they leave no trace to the untrained eye.
Just a little comment on anglers digging bait beds out, remember anglers only want bait for pleasure fishing. But lets go back many years when inshore fishermen used long lines, and each day they would put a line out with many hundreds of hooks on, and where did many get their bait from day after day after day, the local bait bed, you would think they would have dug then out, but no they are still their, healthy as ever.
Producers of information into the effects of bait digging can get over zealous with their writing against anglers that they quite often contradict themselves. I was once given a study written by a professor BSC etc, when discussing the Tees estuary. He made some glaring errors in his statements, the biggest being, that he said, on a certain date bait digging was banned at Budle Bay, a couple of chapters later when discussing another matter he said the bait beds where dug out by such and such a date. Only thing was anglers where banned from digging there about five years before he said it was dug out, OOOOPPSS.
And of course they wouldn’t have any financial motive for getting bait digging banned would they. Except for the Marine Biologist who gave a damming report about bait diggers in the public enquiry about Budle bay, one of Natural England’s prize witnesses was disgraced when it was pointed out to the Chair that he was a director of Sea Bait, mind he hadn’t told Natural England either, what a shock they got, well that’s what they said, funny how everybody in the north east knew except Natural England. And of course those being paid by an organisation wouldn’t be slightly biased in their favour, well if they were not they might not get further PAID work from that organisation.
General comment
When it comes to the designation of MCZ’s in other parts of the country, if a VOLUNTARY permit system was introduced where displaced North East anglers dig, and only locals get them, where would North East anglers then go. And of course the unlucky anglers who do not get a permit. This could happen anywhere. I will come onto permits later.
ii) Abiding by the voluntary and statutory mechanisms put in place to ensure sustainable seas
Comment: This requirement must be observed by all stakeholders, including external stakeholders who may deem a right of access under the CFP. There must be a clearly defined area properly signed both on and offshore. The occasional visitor to an area must be aware of the existence of the MCZ. In particular where there are local rules e.g. limited access to an RSPB site during the mating season. These must be clearly communicated.
When an area is defined out at sea as a MCZ how can you ensure nobody enters this area. Many boats now have GPS systems, but there are still many that don’t, and I am sure you won’t be putting a ring of dans around it.
iii) What information and advice on which to base a decision to create a MCZ.
Comment: The sources identified for the collection of the Data are many and varied. Each will have their own specific agenda for creating their database. We must have a cohesive interagency approach in adopting the data for each separate MCZ.
iv) Getting the balance right for stake holder’s interest.
Comment: There has to be a level playing field and no group should have any bias in their favour. The over-arching principle has to try to be as inclusive as possible, not exclusive.
If it does not detrimentally affect the objectives of an MCZ, an activity should be permitted.
Natural England will find any excuse possible to find something they say is detrimental to the MCZ if a bait digging area is within a MCZ.
The NFSAS’s experience with Natural England is that they can not be unbiased about bait digging/fishing, if it is up to them then I can tell you now two areas that they will want to be included in a MCZs now, Boulmer and Newton Haven (leased by National Trust). As both these areas are mentioned in the Northumberland Coast AONB
Which brings me nicely onto the over exuberance of those on the front line the little Hitler warden. NE & NT etc at the top may not advocate the stopping of bait digging sites where it goes on legitimately, but some of the wardens whether they have been asked or told to try and deter anglers from digging by middle management, or they have taken it upon their selves to try and protect their patch. These wardens can at times be over exuberant in their job. One warden in his exuberance to stop people digging bait, obviously not being a ware of what he was doing in his trance like state, drove a land rover at high speed at a digger, standing not far from a wall, jumped out and started yelling at the angler telling the angler he couldn’t dig bait. He was very brave doing this to an old aged pensioner who was in that much shock he had to be taken straight home and given a few strong drinks. I would have prosecuted him, but he was lucky the PENSIONER didn’t want to take it any further.
The same warden has also told many anglers that they could not dig where they are. I spoke to him after the police had been brought to chase anglers, this on an area where no bait digging restrictions are in force, and told him to stop it and in future before he asks anglers to leave, tell them he has no legal right to move you, but I would like you to do so. Had no complaints since.
The same warden at a meeting had quite a few of my press cuttings where I had blasted him for his actions. He was practically in tears because he could not reply to the story. I replied that, write a letter or phone the paper and I am sure they would put it in the letter page. But before you do that could you give me the titles of all the magazines i.e. anti anglers weekly, or twicthers delight, where articles slang off anglers for bait digging, so we could reply to those. He never sent his complaint.
Another warden used to keep telling anglers at another area that they also can’t dig, where they are entitled to in a clearly defined area.
Heaven forbid that he never had anything to do with the incidents of tyre slashing that happened at the same area. It is funny that of all the cars parked in the area, which attracts many visitors, that only anglers tyres where slashed. Odd though, that at meetings about bait digging, he bragged that he had the registrations of all the anglers that dig that area and where they come from. This ended after an angler was threatened with a knife, when he caught a guy slashing tyres, and I went to the papers with the story. The lad was so traumatised he has, as far as I know not been back, and was too scared to go to the police.
2) What communication mechanisms would be most appropriate for us to provide information to your organisation and the sector you represent? For example, is there a particular publication you have which updates of the MCZ project could be written in?
1) Newsletters and minutes made available
Comment: This is admirable providing that the organization can keep it current
2) Website important to make people feel included
Comment: This has to be a controlled Website. The majority of websites provide the vociferous minority with a platform on which to air their personal views. This can generate negative opinion which is not countered and consequently influences the opinion of others who are less informed. A controlled site provides the organization with the ability to counter any negative comments and reinforce the policy statement.
The NFSAS response to (2) is that a website controlled by one organisation can be used to put only their views over and could deprive someone from having his point heard, freedom of speech comes to mind.
USING AT as an example, hope they don’t mind
Information should not just be kept on an AT website, information of all meetings should be
given to all stakeholders and spread as far as possible by web sites. This as I have proven with my postings of talk’s e mails etc with committee members has started good dialogue amongst anglers, although some of it has been very emotive. An AT website controlled by AT could end with what they deemed negative posts being omitted and posts by what AT would deem the ill-informed be omitted. If the ill informed are not corrected they will still be the ill informed, these are the people you need to get to. We just do not want the views of AT, which many do not agree with, which could happen with a controlled web site. Obviously any personal attacks, and fowl language would not be tolerated.
3) Interactive website for feedback opportunities
Comment: As at 2) above.
4. The AT website could have a page set up to hold MCZ information. A good start would be the briefing note you distributed with this request for response,
Comment: A new site in its infancy but is being regularly updated so can display current topics to a mass audience expeditiously.
Important also that angler’s not accessible to the net should be kept informed via angling mags etc. This should have been done from the start.
General comment
Everything should be done on a voluntary basis and we should all work together for the best of the foreshore. Unfortunately, from what I have gleaned so far I fear that this will never happen. Commercial fishermen could lose fishing areas, both boat and shore anglers could loose bait digging/fishing areas. But what is Natural England going to put into the pot, nothing I would imagine, but they could possibly be gaining areas where they can put restrictions. As one of the items on the agenda is,
Anglers and Marine Conservation Zones: a partnership approach to achieving marine conservation (JD/AJ)
Believe a partnership means sharing.
The effects of the Anderson V Alnwick District Council
This case had two real outcomes that effected anglers
1/ The High Court Judgement proved anglers had the right of fisheries which is enshrined in the Magna Carta, great we won, yes it has prevented many more bait digging bans being put in place by Natural England, unless they go to great expense
2/ Unfortunately, there was a down side to this, before the case very few anglers knew about Boulmer and only dug there on big tides so they could get the better worms. Of course Alnwick DC must of felt sure they would win as they had maps etc in the papers of where Boulmer was, they lost, and every numpty angler in the North East now knew where top anglers got their bait and the problem, which can not be stopped, is much greater that it was. And as I have already said, that I believe Natural England will try and use the MCZ designation process to stop bait digging there.
This brings me onto the CEFAS survey
Anglers do not want to, and from the information I have, will not give the locations of bait beds for this reason. Many small beds, which are now appearing with the clean up of beaches in certain areas, have been nurtured by anglers who take only what they need, and their wished should be respected and any future survey should not contain questions regarding worm beds.
A general comment about the survey, Natural England have tried all ways to get this information for years, and I believe they are just using the MCZ designation process to get this information.
Has this anything to do with the Intertidal review of intertidal areas, which could take place next year? Quote by Rob Blythe-Skerne back in June 2008 “I think that intertidal features are then going to be reviewed next year, but all this work will include the North Northumberland part of the SAC”
If information is required about fish catches, and North East anglers are in agreement there is no need for a survey as I myself will probably have enough to satisfy any survey requirements, and back up what anglers have said already, catches are now the worst they have ever been in the North East.
Permits
In my telephone conversation it was said there could be a possibility of permits being needed to dig/fish at certain places. Suppose anglers VOLUNATRILY agreed to a permit system,
Who would get these permits, would it be locals or would it be a national one. Would there be a charge?
Problems this would cause, using the North East as an example
If only locals where eligible for a permit in MCZ designated areas away from the north east, north east anglers could be stopped from digging there and having to move elsewhere, again causing aggravation which I have already mentioned. Most anglers at times do go to different locations around the country for various types of bait, it is a sport that needs various types of bait, depending on the type of fishing and species an angler is after. And what about when anglers are on holiday or long weekend fishing trips at far off destinations.
If anglers VOLUNTARILLY accepted a permit, would this also apply to bird watchers, using the same area? If not, why not.
Problems for Federation committees
Again using NE clubs as an example, being a federation with a large area, due to the displaced NE anglers, who now have to go to other parts for their bait, this has caused friction between anglers from member clubs who are in the NFSAS, obviously, the committee can not take sides. This is another reason why it is important to have local meetings.
OTHER POINTS
DEFRA’s figures regarding the responses to the RSA and Article 47 are very misleading, at first it appears that there was very little interest shown. But going by the NFSAS membership figures to me DEFRA must have counted a response from the NFSAS and other Federations and clubs, who put in a response on behalf of their members, as a single response, having a membership well over the 470 responses to the RSA strategy, and 1,5000 responses to Article 47. In fact three of our member clubs, who put a response in have almost 900 members between them.
LOCAL MEETINGS
All is going well with spreading the word. The NFSAS has contacted all the Federations local representatives, NEBF, SAMF, AT, no doubt their national representatives will also want to attend. Also representatives of the charter skippers from the Blyth, Tyne, & Amble has made expressed a wish to attend, I would expect that more would also express a wish to attend. Many clubs, not only NFSAS affiliated clubs have expressed a wish to attend. I have expressed upon clubs that only two club members should attend, even though there whole membership may wish two. The reason for two is, if they were to be more than one meeting, if one could not attend, this would keep the continuity going. I would like again to emphasise the NFSAS’s point that all bodies that wish to attend should be allowed to, and not just a selected few, you need to get the whole picture.
Alan Charlton
Press Sec NFSAS
Anthony Hynes
DEFRA
Re MCZ meeting 3rd April
This is the first time I have been able to contact you having just returned from short break away during which I attended the meeting on 3rd April which entailed a round trip of 280 mile. You did e mail me earlier asking if there was anything you could do I should let you know, I replied that I was expecting Jamie Davies to answer the points I had raised with the local NE, which where ignored and would give him the chance to. I now find the need to approach you direct. If this gets the NFSAS nowhere then I would imagine the next step will be our MEP, think he might be interested in why the process is stalling. Unfortunately I found the meeting at Birmingham a total waste of my time, as you know from the meeting the JNCC and NE refused to answer any of the points that I raised sent to them weeks beforehand, suspect they had got their heads together beforehand to decide what to do. The JNCC and NE where more interested into trying to persuade the angling bodies represented there that the MCZ designation was the greatest thing since sliced bread for anglers and we should go away and extol the virtues of the MCZ's to our members. Yes I did say I could pass the information on to all my contacts, but not until questions are answered, and also that they themselves should come and tell the anglers, it is not our job to do their work. To those who have only just started attending meetings with NE and the like, along with the, this is a wonderful partnership to be involved in, and we want to be open and build bridges after what has happened in the past sounds very good. However, to someone like myself and the other angling bodies present, who have attended many meetings in the past with NE it is just the same old rhetoric we have heard over and over again. I had come with the intention to have a real go at NE about the contradicting answers I had received from Audrey Jones, her condition prevented me from doing so, as I did not want a happy event to come sooner than expected. And as for their veiled threats, the first in my conversation with Audrey when she said if we did not co operate we might end up with nothing, and Jamie's threat that if we did not give the information about bait digging we could find the bait beds included in an MCZ. So what, if the JNCC and NE want to go down that route then you should look at the North East anglers track record, we have already forced one public enquiry and a North East angler went all the way to the Crown Court to prove the "right of fisheries". And they call this a partnership, if anglers have nothing to worry about, why will the JNCC and NE not answer the questions they are asked, truthfully that is. At the NFSAS AGM on the 16th, I will be proposing that we go off a statement made by Audrey Jones, when I asked will there be any bait digging or fishing bans within MCZ's she gave an emphatic NO, long before Audrey started contradicting herself, I will put that confusion down to her condition.
I also when I arrived home expected to have the minutes of the meeting, this should have been done straight away as they where typed straight onto a lap top and could have been e mailed out, or are the JNCC and NE going through them to see if there is any leading statements they have made that should not be in, like the one I asked Tom Bleasedale if he would put it into writing, which he said NO to. If that has been removed from the minutes then the NFSAS will know they have been altered and not a true record of the meeting. And also Audrey Jones also said she would send the results of the CEFAS survey which took place along the East and North East coast, still waiting.
In the future if the JNCC, NE, and DEFRA want to talk to the NFSAS, you will have to come to us, I certainly do not want another wasted journey to Birmingham.
yours sincerely
A.J. Charlton
Comment