Proof of Evidence Document

Reuben Woodford

Afon Ogwen Anglers (Petitioners)

{In collaboration with CPWF}

Personal Background

My Name is Reuben Woodford, I am the Gwynedd Local Fisheries Advisory Group representative for ‘Anglers of the Afon Ogwen’ – Anglers are served by and contribute to, two community clubs on these waters 1) Ogwen Valley Angling Association [Approx 80 members] & 2) Penrhyn Fishing Club [approx 30 members]. I represent the committees and anglers of the afore-mentioned community clubs and as originator of a petition presented to the Welsh Assembly ‘Give Welsh Fishing Clubs & Salmon & Sea- trout a chance’, on behalf of 1719 signatories (calling for a revised approach to improving habitats, managing fisheries and collaborative initiatives, underpinned by a new era of improved relationships and communication, conducive to progressive and productive, catchment and community focused approaches. We recognise that there are uncertainties in terms of risks to salmon at sea and within coastal margins and we call for greater action to identify and help manage these impacts.)

I stand alongside members of the CPWF in providing evidence to the Public Inquiry.

I have worked within the environmental field for the last 25 years for NRW; EAW & CCW, primarily within Flood and Coastal Risk Management and produced the Catchment Flood Management Plans for North Wales, establishing the strategic approach for FCRM in line with climate change predictions. I have worked for Local Authorities as a flood risk engineer and as a private sector environmental consultant managing ecological and human health risk from contaminated land; habitat restoration.

I have an MSc in Water Resource Management and hold a BSc in Applied Geography/Geology and am a qualified personal trainer and sports therapist (Dip PT & Dip ST) with an interest in sports science. I have a lifetime of participation in sport and following pursuits in the outdoors, angling being the one that draws all these interests together and upon which I have a multi-disciplinary view.

Forward Summary

Section 1 Our Current Position Prohibition and Stock Recovery Exploitation Controls in the Context of Catchment Limitations to Stock Recovery Causative Factors of Stock Decline and Recovery The Selling of Salmon – Ineffective Law Social Backlash – Enforcement Information The Consequence of Applying Bylaws with Social, Cultural and Economic Impacts The Prohibition Paradox To Lose Cultural Values The Consequential Risk Due to the Byelaw Measures Red Flag Impacts

Section 2 The River Ogwen – In the Context of the NRW Byelaw Proposals Catchment Characteristics Habitat Impacts Catchment Pressures Salmon & Sea-Trout River Restoration Work Water Framework Directive Key Problems Ogwen Bank Weir Fish-Pass Small Scale Run of the River HEP Denuded River Channels Achieving Actions Salmon and Sea-trout Action Plans Water Framework Directive Future of River Channel Restoration Salmon Stock Status Afon Ogwen Fishing Clubs Conservation Measures

Section 3 Well-being Considerations – NRW Byelaw Impacts The Well-being Goals The Five Ways of Working A Failure to instigate Sustainable Development Well-being – Pitfalls and a lack of Opportunity Byelaw Impacts - Objectives

Section 4 Consideration of Proof of Evidence NRW/1 Consideration of Proof of Evidence NRW/1A

Table 1 Direct Impacts of proposed NRW Byelaws on Angling Behaviour

Table 2 Consequences to Angling due to Impact on Angling Behaviour from NRW Byelaws

Table 3 Conservation Limit Afon Ogwen

Table 4 Fish Predation Rates

Figure 1 Fish Exploited by Natural Predators, Poachers and Anglers River Ogwen

Proof of Evidence Document

Reuben Woodford

Afon Ogwen Anglers (Petitioners)

Foreword

The fact we have been drawn into this stage of a process that was to be about collaborative partnerships and a shared way of working is of great disappointment to I and the angling community I represent. This level of discord between NRW and communities cannot be perpetuated as there is far greater challenge to come and we must find common ground upon which to build a future. NRW’s Byelaw measures cannot provide what we collectively seek, as prohibition of elements of angling will neither improve fish-stocks or our shared well-being, now or in the future.

Summary

The primary frustration for the angling community, is that we and NRW share a common goal for the present and future for salmonid fish stocks. Our current predicament places partnership working between NRW and communities in jeopardy. This is a non- productive situation to be in and a waste of resource for all concerned, unless; we learn by this painful scenario and build measures that allow us to progress building resilience and positive adaption. It is however, NRW, who have placed us in this position; we have provided the scrutiny and evidence that they have refused to apply and pursue, to bring us all to a point of enablement. We can only participate in a meaningful way if we are allowed to participate; and we have not been.

Having considered well-being goals in a seemingly myopic way, NRW have failed to identify the risks associated with their prohibitory measures, and thus continue to throw blind faith into their byelaws. The measures have been developed without the deliberative process called for within NRW’s SoNaRR Report (3) and the ‘common sense’ approaches spoken of in NRWs corporate plan (1). Collectively, we within the angling community, who come from varied backgrounds, but share a common purpose, present in our evidence, reasoned argument why the byelaws would bring detriment to the fisheries we share.

NRW’s Corporate plan (1), promises much and seeks change in the behaviours of its Institution, that make sense to us all, and yet our collective experience indicates that change remains blocked by an organisation with very little maneuverability, choked of the ability to accommodate adaption and admit mishap in approach. Whilst providing us with a dearth of promise within corporate ‘delivery plans’, we know all our river catchments require attention, to improve ecological status and habitats and to optimise the productivity of fisheries. The SoNaRR report (3) makes very clear the improvements that are required in our environment and acknowledges our collective shortfalls. Little ‘on the ground’ action has taken place recently because regulatory aspiration and resource is in a downward spiral. We understand the constraints, but we offer a solution in partnership to alleviate some of the pressures. A rebuff such as the byelaws, is a self- destructive management tool in such a scenario.

Excluded and disempowered from an inclusive, collaborative and integrated development approach, contrary to the guidance and vision expressed in a host of strategic documents, to which NRW are tied to by law and best practice principles - the angling community face prohibition from traditional angling methods. For over a decade, anglers have been progressively returning more of the fish they catch and engaging in environment projects which help sustain the eco-system services of our rivers and riparian corridors. We have all engaged more, learnt more and developed greater synergy with the requirement to adapt to environments and fish stocks under variable degrees of pressure.

Criminalisation of people with whom NRW work in partnership, in particular when NRWs own enforcement teams doubt the wisdom of the approach or their ability to police such a system, or ethicacy to do so – sends a strong warning sign to those who believe in the unquestionable ability of prohibition to stop practices guarded by tradition. Tinkering with angling methods will achieve nothing. The consequential impacts of the byelaws have been ignored – it is imperative they are not. The Environment Agency in England recognises the danger of criminalising acts that represent very low impact to fish survival whilst cultural worth to its people. This is a pursuit that brings well-being to communities in many ways. NRWs ‘byelaw’ choice is its own and it risks making Wales an exporter of angling tourism, when the natural predation rates and poaching activities upon Welsh Waters are likely to make up most of the exploitation of adult and juvenlie fish in Welsh rivers.

Lacking robust scrutinisation, NRW have provided measures, not fit for purpose, which were they to be applied to Wales rivers would leave the regulatory environment blind and weak with depleted data and enforcement supplementation.

The sociological connections and synergies formed through the existence of angling as a pursuit in Wales stimulate well-being; social, economic and cultural. Angling communities have found themselves in a contrary position; defending principles of sustainable development and well-being because NRW are not adhering to them. The divergence in stance between communities and the NRW, is not one related to ‘aim’, but of the most appropriate means of ‘achieving’ a shared goal; a goal both of fish and of people and their relationship with environment.

The alternative approach presented by CPWF(6) supported by the angling community, seeks a collaborative and integrated approach to formulate a robust and useful mechanism to take our shared initiatives forwards. There can be nobody by now who relishes the lack of consensus between NRW and stakeholders. The angling community, have developed their evidence further since the NRW Board meeting of January 2018, illustrating objectively the weaknesses in NRWs stock assessments; management tools and well-being considerations. Diane McCrea made a decision upon the bye-laws, knowing there was not only a serious gap between the views of the fishery team and stakeholders, but a serious lack of collaborative working to derive the measures. This is simply not sustainable principles in motion – it is time NRW considered why there is such a gap between their aspirational rhetoric and the working reality. ‘An important success factor for sustainable development is to obtain greater consensus and strengthen community involvement in both deciding on priorities, and on delivery. ‘ (7) The Prohibition ‘Byelaws’ would undermine our progress and have wide ranging consequences:

1. Weaken our ability to prevent illegal fishing and selling. 2. Weaken our ability to gather information and report environmental crime. 3. Weaken our evidence for stock assessment. 4. Weaken partnership working relationships. 5. Disempower the angling community. 6. Place angling and angling clubs in Wales at immediate risk (they have already) 7. Deny Wales social and economic benefits. 8. Fail to achieve well-being Objectives and perversely illicit ill-being.

Statutory measures offer no additional legitimacy or support to a system that ousts all participants.

As NRW elude to in their corporate plan:

‘And we will know we are working in the best way we can because our staff and customers will have told us so. We strive for excellence and are continuously improving how we work – this is an integral part of our culture and our behaviours.’ (1)

We must find ‘win win’ scenarios for well-being as promoted by the principles of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. (7) With agreement we can progress the improvements we have already made in partnership, however there must be catchment specific initiatives and dismissal of a one measure suits all mentality. NRWs focus is returning to catchments, we do not need legislation that denies individual rivers their unique solutions. We must not lose focus, that anglers are not the problem and are the critical role player in the solution to the improvement of sustainable fisheries where regulatory resources are in crisis. SECTION 1

1 Our Current Position

This is not a time for discord and yet NRWs Byelaw process has driven a wedge between the goal and access to a delivery mechanism. Prohibition through Byelaws cannot provide what society seeks in this case. The stakes are too high and plain to see in the risks to current and future well-being that the byelaws would impose. We consider those risks later in this paper. The provisional measures have already elicited harm upon the social dynamics within fisheries and we have already seen patterns of participation change and members leave clubs. (6) These are risks that NRW have played down. The obsurdity is that wisdom and pragmatism have not come to our aid.

2 Prohibition and Stock Recovery

 The NRW base their ‘Byelaw’ approach on two critical assumptions:

1. That their stock assessment is the best evidence they can provide and thus it is the evidence upon which they will base their management decisions. CPWF have presented detailed evidence which draws the validity of this reasoning and interpretation of this information into doubt and thus the legitimacy of this course of action. (6)

2. That the management response they propose will create the desired outcome. In considering this point we need to remember that the ‘byelaws’ have been promoted as part of a wider group of measures to which NRW claims adherence to in their duties to manage fish stocks and the environment within which we all interact. The outcome to which the ‘byelaw’ proposals apply, therefore primarily applies to optimising salmon spawner numbers, a requisite it is argued by them to achieve increased fish stocks.

The CPWF papers consider this ‘control’ on spawning (egg production) and juvenile fish numbers in greater detail as there are a number of critical reasons why increased fish escapement does not lead to increased productivity of stock in Wales river catchments where habitat for fish is sub-optimised and in many rivers highly denuded. The legitimacy of this approach is thus immediately brought into question.

3. Exploitation controls in the context of catchment limitations to stock recovery.

1. The current state of river catchments and our oceans, which by now are heavily influenced by anthropogenic stimuli (man induced) places additional controls on our ability to influence stock levels. These circumstances are also an indication of the opportunities available to instigate positive change, but also in parallel, of the danger of not doing so.

2. Natural variability within Salmon stocks is also discussed in CPWF Papers (6). There are some indications that climate change aside, nature maybe counteracting and enacting its own cyclical alterations in stock. Policy changes affecting the marine environment and limiting large scale netting operations certainly has the potential to influence marine numbers of adults returning to rivers for the better.

Causative Factors of stock decline & variability

Marine

 Reported changes in adult salmonid feeding grounds.  Over fishing at sea and by-catch of Adult Salmon (& over exploitation of prey)  Fish Farms (Sea Lice & Disease affecting wild stocks)  Fish Farms (Escapement & Interbreeding)  Estuarine illegal fishing  Natural Predation  Climate Change – Induced ecosystem response to ocean temperatures

River  Climatic variability – temperature increase/extreme flows/low flows and rapid flux between flows.  Altered flow regimes and sediment transportation due to engineered in channel assets and abstractions  Water Quality Impacts  Habitat Loss and degradation  Excessive natural predation rates  Man-made and natural barriers to juvenile and adult fish migration  In river illegal fishing

In terms of proportionality of the byelaws, it must be understood, that NRWs byelaw measures will not assist in combating any of the above pressures on fish stocks in an environment where voluntary C&R is already being practiced by most anglers, many of whom return most of their fish.

As the CPWF Paper (6) illustrates, total exploitation by rods forms a statistically very low portion of the pressure upon fish.

The Selling of Salmon – Ineffective Law

Anecdotal evidence indicates salmon and sea-trout are traded within a black market in most parts of wales. This market derives salmon and sea-trout from mainstream poaching or bi-catch of fish from commercial fishing, both primarily using net based methods of capture. Other methods are also used.

A lesser source of fish on the black market is rod caught salmon and sea-trout. Although normal practice in recent times, the selling of rod caught salmon and sea-trout became illegal in England and Wales under legislation introduced by the Environment Agency on 31st January 2007. (8) An angler with or without license who catches and sells salmon or sea-trout is viewed by anglers as a poacher. Whilst anecdotal evidence suggests selling of fish by anglers with or without permit and license, is now not the norm, it seems likely from enforcement reports that a minority still engage in this practice. All clubs condone this behaviour and substantiate the requirements of the law in club rules.

Through a social and behavioural lens it is understandable that enforcing this legislation is problematic. To the perpetrators however, the statutory ban on the selling of rod caught salmon and sea-trout seems to act as little deterrent. There is no objective evidence of the enforcement of the ban.

A freedom of information request to NRW shows that no poacher has been prosecuted by NRW for flaunting this regulation.

1. Number of prosecutions for selling of rod caught salmon & sea trout in Wales per annum, 2013 - 2018. 0

2. Number of prosecutions for selling of illegally caught salmon & sea trout in Wales per annum, 2013 - 2018. 0 (Ref 9)

Responding to commercial demand for fish, a poacher is driven to pursue fish for supply. The cultural history of our rivers shows that in a byegone era this was the same for all anglers and poachers alike and limitation on catch was desirable not on the basis of an environmental ethos, but one of equality between fishers.

Discussions between various club committee members and NRW enforcement officers throughout North Wales shows that NRW personnel do not have the institutional will to act on the ban.

Unworkable and destructive Regulations

Those same discussions with NRW employees reveal there is little belief that NRW would be capable of enforcing the prohibitory byelaws for a host of reasons listed below:

a) At a social level it would not be deemed appropriate behaviour to inflict ill- being upon fellow community members. b) NRW do not have the resource to be able to prevent commercial scale poaching let alone minor indiscretions by anglers practicing a craft. c) The extent to which the byelaws are culturally unacceptable is perceived to carry the likelihood of en-mass non-compliance and therefore severe reputational damage were enforcement action to be taken against all. d) Likewise, individual enforcement actions would be judged as persecution. e) Most enforcement officers are anglers. They were not consulted on these plans internally and they recognise the angling community have been alienated by NRW.

This is not a healthy situation for anyone. Realising the irrationality of the measures this is why EA England have decided against mandatory codes (6).

It is vital that in offering a way forwards to manage fisheries that we do not tarr anglers and poachers with the same brush. The ethically astute angler who fishes long hours for the pleasure of the pursuit, returning most or all fish to the water, recorded upon a catch return, should not be the focus of prohibitionary byelaws. It is simply socially unjust.

Social Backlash – Enforcement Information

At the Gwynedd Local Fisheries Group meeting in Trawsfynydd, on December 5th 2018, employees of NRW stated that the angling community had been alienated by the byelaw process. It was stated that enfocement information usually readily imparted between anglers and NRW at this time of year when fish are especially vulnerable on or near spawning grounds ‘had dried up’ and that NRW may well be paying the consequence of alienating anglers.

The Consequence of applying Byelaws with social, cultural and economic impacts.

 Both Pan Wales and local byelaws currently exist across the country which are in general accepted by the angling community to ease pressures on stock. They also stand as part of communities overall investment in conservation measures and in an environment where freedom of choice is maintained for a significant part of a fishing season, an acceptable limitation. Freedom of choice does not lead to the wrong choices in terms of achieving sustainability and well-being goals as long as the positive stimuli are present to instill appropriate beliefs and behaviours.

 In July 2015 the then chairman of NRW stated that he “hoped that their aims could be achieved without resorting to statutory legislation” (6)

NRWs consultation upon the byelaws ended in November 2017 and a questionnaire distributed as part of this process showed 83% of respondents opposed the proposals.

Despite NRW’s Principal and Senior Fisheries Advisors admitting that anglers know their rivers better than NRW do, they have repeatedly dismissed our concerns and evidence and it has not been incorporated into the development of measures to improve fish stocks in any significant way. Instead, the NRW Fisheries Team has relentlessly pursued its “Preferred Option” of statutory legislation irrespective of the very clear evidence that is now in our and CPWF’s possession that:

1. The magnitude of the current salmon stock problem has been over-emphasised and there are weaknesses in the data and stock assessment process that have critical consequences for decision management.

Under the Scottish System under SEPA, the River Ogwen (Our home river) would have no restrictions.

2. At a catchment scale many inhibiting factors contribute to habitats unable to adequately support juvenile and adult fish.

3. By targeting anglers first and foremost, NRW have indicated their priority is to restrict angler practices whilst not paying due attention to their own failings which they indicate are due to a lack of resource.

The NRW have not assessed the likely consequences of applying another tier of prohibitive legislation.

The Prohibition Paradox

David Allen Green (10) supports common wisdom that we must be receptive to the potential consequences of prohibitive laws. NRW have given very little thought to the ‘consequences’ of the byelaws. As a result, we find ourselves in a very dangerous position. As anglers, we are faced with the reality of environmental pollution on a daily basis, from plastics, to oils, sewage discharges to large scale dumping of solid and liquid wastes. All these acts and events are prohibited by laws and yet they represent both local and global failures of statute to stop the acts from happening. The reality is that the act of littering, or polluting or dumping waste cannot be stopped by a law – and yet few would claim these acts are socially acceptable.

As Green states, prohibition, ‘often creates new problems. Being banned does not thereby stop the thing from happening. It just means that the legal system will be engaged in a way it otherwise would not be.’ (10)

The article adds credence to our own fears linked to our interpretation of the social, cultural and behavioral dynamics linked to this challenge.

As we have indicated, the likely consequences, which are already coming to fruition, of ‘the byelaws’ and those already very real, linked to the ‘threat of the byelaws’ are wide ranging and potentially very damaging to community and environment management alike.

Green refers to the ‘deterrence effect’ as the obvious intent of prohibition, however this is of little effect if most behavior is likely to be modified so as to escape detection and some behavior carry on as before, but worsened by the criminalisation of all participants. (10) In line with the thinking in this article, we have throughout ‘this process’ asked for:

 Close and reasoned scrutiny of the potential consequences of measures proposed by NRW.

 The validity of the byelaw measures with reference to resolving a problem.

1. The actual contribution the prohibition (the byelaws) has on angler behaviour. 2. The negative impacts the measures will have on other community values and dynamics across Wales.

If additional measures are required, they must be sensible and bring benefit. It is stating the obvious, but the obvious has not happened and we are ‘stuck between a rock and hard place.’

As Green states, ‘the call for something to be "banned" should be the start of a mature and constructive debate, and not the end of one.’ (10)

At the NRW Board meeting of 18th January 2018, chaired by Diane McCrea, three members of the Board challenged the byelaw development process (Andy Middleton, Zoe Henderson and Howard Davies.) Andy Middleton offered the pragmatic solution that the measures should be reworked over the course of the next year to reach a collaborative and reasoned solution as it was clear this had not been achieved. Diane McCrea and other executive members of NRWs Board steered the meeting away from this solution.

Signatories of two petitions calling for a revision of the measures (1069 & 1711 Signatures); Angling and community representatives across Wales; Assembly members across Wales and the Welsh Governments Petitions Committee, have sought to establish a constructive means to turn a bad situation around. The dearth of public opinion stands against the byelaw measures.

To Lose Cultural Values

The Spate Rivers of North Wales in particular are best fished by worm during most conditions for Salmon, however especially during a high spate. To truly engage with Spate Rivers, an experienced angler will through necessity use a variety of techniques, often improvised to make the most of the diverse and rapidly changing conditions. An angler may very well apply four different methods over the course of an hour for a number of reasons, tactical advantage; enjoyment; fairness or even superstition. Ultimately, there is a direct correlation between an angler’s opportunity to engage with the diversity of this pursuit, as that is what constitutes its amenity and intrinsic value.

The NRWs byelaws threaten the value of the pursuit and the social, cultural and economic benefits communities in Wales derive from it.

Some of the direct impacts upon angling for salmon were the NRWs Byelaws to be applied are listed below.

 Remove freedom of choice  Stop anglers taking a trophy fish  Stop anglers taking a salmon for subsistence  Stop angling for salmon using traditional methods  Limiting anglers ability to fish certain water conditions  Limiting anglers ability to fish certain waters  Forcing anglers to make counterintuitive actions  Forcing clubs to make counterintuitive actions  Forcing anglers to buy new equipment  Forcing anglers to pursue their pastime outside of their community environments and country  Forcing anglers to pursue their pastime during unsociable hours  Forcing anglers to follow an alternative fishing regime and fishing methods  Forcing anglers to return dying fish to the water  Destroy the free spirited nature of fishing Table 1. Direct Impacts of Proposed NRW Byelaws on Angling Behaviour

 High negative impact upon intrinsic and amenity value of angling  High impact upon the cultural value of angling  High impact upon traditional fishing methods  Loss of subsistence benefit  Unequitable consequences in comparison to recreational sea angling controls  Forced to adopt immoral stance through participation [release dead fish/C&R only/use of light tackle for large fish]  Criminalisation of mundane acts in comparison to current high impact illegal activity  Unequitable impact upon anglers

Table 2. Consequences to Angling due to impact on angling behaviour NRW Byelaws

The consequential risk due to the byelaw measures proposed are:

 High risk to the resilience and future of community angling clubs due to; a. Lost participation b. Inability to maintain club managed assets c. Inability to pay tenancy fees d. Consequential loss of local waters to community clubs

 High risk to objective Catch Return Data sets

- Inability to asses stocks - Inability to apply appropriate management controls - Loss of regulatory functions - System failure

 High risk to community sourced partnership working - Loss of enforcement capability - Loss of habitat restoration - Loss of access maintenance - Loss of environmental crime data - System failure

 Negative impact upon mental well-being of through: loss of guarded cultural values; loss of traditional angling methods; loss of ability to supplement diet with wild fish; necessity to return dead fish to water; inability to exercise mundane acts under draconian restrictions; loss of life experience; loss of shared experience; loss of existing positive impacts upon mental well-being; over regulated environment.

Detailed assessment of the byelaw measures raises a number of critical impacts upon people and environment which contribute significantly to ‘ill-being’. We have termed these ‘red flag’ impacts as they are critical indicators that the byelaw measures carry high risk of negative consequential impacts.

Red Flag Impacts

Community related:

i. Dead Fish Carcasses to river ii. Loss of safe access to riverside paths iii. Loss of community centered service/hub iv. Loss of positive local and distal economic impact v. Negative impact on traditional skills and values vi. Anglers forced to seek pursuit in other uk/foreign waters a) Significant cost implications and not a reasonable option b) Negative carbon footprint impact c) Alternative access to pursuit limited accessibility d) Perverse consequence in terms of wider sustainability vii. Loss of ‘healthy community spirit’

NRW Related:

1. Increase in Illegal fishing and impact on fish stocks 2. Increase in environmental crime and impact on ecosystems 3. High magnitude people science data loss and subsequent failure of evidence based system – Fisheries/WFD 4. Highly negative impact upon community centered ‘environment’ projects 5. Significant level of reputational damage

SECTION 2

The River Ogwen (In the context of the NRW Byelaw proposals)

Catchment Characteristics

The main River Ogwen (Afon Ogwen) is approximately 7 miles in length. All but the final few hundred metres of the main river are accessible to both salmon and sea-trout. This final inaccessible section is formed of a series of large waterfalls (the Ogwen Falls) which are thought to significantly improve the productive ability of the headwaters for fish due to their aerating affect.

Salmon and sea-trout are able to also access sections of tributaries of the river, which are fairly numerous, however limited in accessibility due to the steep valley slopes which present significant natural barriers to migration. These streams present long stretches of upland waters void of migratory Salmonids, however with fairly healthy populations of brown trout (variable). The primary supportive function of these streams is high quality water to the Salmonids habitats and spawning beds and a natural supply of varied sediments including the gravels that are essential for salmonid spawning.

The Ogwen River estuary flows into the Menai Strait formed between the mainland and the Isle of Anglesey.

Habitat Impacts

The habitats and morphology of the Afon Ogwen are varied and have historically been significantly impacted by farming, quarrying, mining and dredging. These practices have led to a river denuded of its natural morphology in many places, including complete loss of some tributaries, scoured river bed lacking in gravels, elsewhere dominated in slate waste and with a number of man-made barriers to fish migration. Historically, severe pollution events have occurred linked to mining, industry and poaching and local accounts indicate the ecological impacts on the river were severe.

Catchment Pressures Salmon & Sea-Trout

Today, the communities understanding of the main controls on salmon & sea-trout survival within the river catchment are:

 Habitat Loss and sub-optimal habitats  Loss of natural river morphology and natural river process  Loss of tributaries replaced by drainage ditches  Barriers and partial barriers to fish migration  Increased Natural Predation Rates (Goosander; Cormorant; Otter)  Agricultural and Sewerage treatment pollution  Diffuse Pollution  Illegal fishing activity  Climate change impacts on flows/water temperature

The potential and observed consequences of these changes are:

 Increased frequency of high rainfall events – risk to spawning gravels and eggs.  Increased frequency of higher Winter Temperatures – causing disruption to spawning and risk to eggs and juvenile fish.  The variability of summer conditions does not provide us with a clear pattern of change, although severe rainfall events in the summer appear to have declined.  Greater spatial variability of rainfall – risk to fish migration within the catchment.

NRWs Stock Control Byelaws will not assist in managing any of these stressors.

River Restoration Work

Approximately 800m of the upper river received habitat restoration work in the 1990s and early 2000s by Environment Agency Wales. Channel severely scoured of most gravel and original morphological features was restored to a series and pools and riffles. Creating both holding areas for adult fish and incubatory habitat for juvenile fish. An extensive length of single bank was also planted with native trees.

It is believed the site restored in the 1990s was supplemented with juvenile salmon from Maerdy Hatchery near Corwen, however we have been unable to confirm this with NRW.

Water Framework Directive

Water quality of the catchment is in general good.

The WFD primary reasons for failure are agri-pollution in the lower catchment and sewage discharges on the lower Ogwen.

Key Problems

Ogwen Bank Weir Fish-pass

The Fish-pass has been in a state of disrepair for approximately 10 years when it was first reported to EAW an then NRW. Fish passage passed the barrier over that period has only been on higher water and during dry summers only constitutes a few days. The river upstream is the main spawning ground.

NRW have failed to progress this project – however since the publication of the Public Inquiry date we are informed that action has been taken to instigate a resolution to the problem. Unfortunately in the interim we have had 10 years of disrupted fish migration.

Small Scale ‘Run of River’ HEP

There are now 4 small scale HEPs in the Afon Ogwen catchment. Our experience of them raises serious concerns. - There are unquantified impacts on geomorphological processes - There are unquantified impacts at catchment scale that nobody takes responsibility for - They are considered ‘green energy’ – they do not prevent Co2 production and have become a key component of NRW fisheries staff workload. - There are approximately now 100 small scale HEP in Snowdonia.

Denuded River Channels Significant extent of river remains modified due to dredging and quarry operations.

Achieving Actions

Salmon & Sea-Trout Action Plans

Most Salmonid Rivers in Wales will have Salmon Action Plans SAPs. Developed by NRW legacy bodies, they were the primary focus for ‘River Catchment Surgeries’, where issues affecting fish and angling would be discussed within local communities.

Although NRW indicate SAPs are still functional, the Afon Ogwen SAP has received no further records during the organisations existence. The documents are therefore considered suspended until further use. Fishery surgeries no longer take place as NRW stipulate there is no resource to run them.

Water Framework Directive

It is unclear whether the WFD has stimulated actions within the catchment apart from work with Welsh Water to improve formal sewerage discharges.

The disappointment is that an issue as critical a redundant fish pass has not triggered action through WFD. Although there are extensive stretches of river which are modified this not flagged up on WFD and therefore does not trigger any actions.

Future of river channel restoration

No planned river restoration. Any future efforts will require aspiration and new funding streams. The Ogwen angling clubs are linked to the Gwynedd and Clwyd Rivers Trust.

Salmon stock status – Afon Ogwen

 The Ogwen has been compliant with its conservation limit 9 out of the last 10 years. (2014 the exception)

Year Compliant with Conservation Limit Exceedence (%) 2017 265 2016 101 2015 135 2014 39 2013 112 Table3: Conservation Limit Afon Ogwen

NASCO defined Management Target Met. (6)

We have worked hard to improve C&R on the Ogwen and release rates are still improving. It is a river where traditionally subsistence catch has been an important part of the local culture and therefore it has taken time and reasoned debate to instigate positive change. Some anglers return all the fish they catch.

The release rate in 2015 was 53%. This is poor and needs to improve to conserve (North Wales average was 65%.)

The release rate in 2017 is 62%. This is poor and needs to improve to conserve stocks. (The North Wales average was 72%)

The Salmon catch in 2017 was above the 10 year average (NRW).

Juvenile Salmon counts on the Ogwen have remained consistent and have not experienced the same fluctuations in numbers seen on some rivers in North Wales in recent years. (Further details of stock to be included in presentation).

Sea trout rod catch – has remained consistent. The Ogwen is a productive sea-trout river.

Table 4: Fish Predation Rates

Afon Ogwen Indicative No Feeding Habits Additional Consumption Individuals Considerations of fish per Based on annum. anecdotal evidence 2017 – 2018 Otters 8 15 – 20% Adopted the (8 x 1.05kg x Bodyweight/Day female feeding 365) (Wildlife Trust). weight to Primary food: account for -15% (other) Fish 80 - 90%) variations in -20% (eel) 6kg – 17.5% age and sex of =1.05kg adult otter. Total 2086 kg Mixed fish species and maturity. Goosanders 15 [1 Duck: 4.79 Additional (15 x 28g x smolt (28g) consumption of 365) sized fish Day] Salmonid eggs (British Trust for not included. [5475 juvenile Ornithology River contains fish] ‘Birdfacts’] almost only salmonid species. Total 153 kg Other: All present and Not Considered. Not considered. Cormorant; active Cormorants Unquantified Merganser throughout the increasing in Impact Heron;Sea- catchment. numbers Gull; mink. annually.

Total Exploitation of fish by otter and goosander = 2239kg [Indicative Figures]

Afon Ogwen 1SW Salmon MSW Salmon Sea-Trout/Trout 2017 Exploited 20 [avg 1.81kg] 6 [avg 4kg] 117 + 30[non mig native] Avg 0.68kg/0.2kg 20 x 1.81kg 6 x 4kg (117 x0.68kg) + (30 x 0.2kg Total Fish Exploitation by 36kg (1SW-Sal) 24kg (MSW-Sal) 85kg (Sea-Trout/Trout) Anglers

Total Exploitation of fish by Anglers with Migratory Fish Licenses = 145kg [Indicative Figures]

Afon Ogwen Salmon Sea-Trout [No of fish10] [No of fish 40] Data Poaching Incidents [avg 2.7kg] [avg 1.36kg]  Based on evidence shared 2018 x 2 (method with angling club net) 10 x 2.7kg 40 x 1.36kg members  Sal avg based on 2017 MSW/1SW ratio and river records.  Sea avg based on on the ground knowledge + video evidence of migrating shoal. 27kg [Sal MSW+1SW] 54kg [Sea-Trout] Total= 81kg [Fish]

Fish Exploited by weight kg (2017/18 data)

81 85

153

ANGLERS - (SEASON)

OTTERS - (ANNUAL)

GOOSANDERS - (ANNUAL)

POACHING - (2 INCIDENTS) 2086

Fig 1 Fish Exploited by Natural Predators, Poachers and Anglers River Ogwen

(Further interpretation for presentation – Public Inquiry)

Fishing Clubs

Ogwen Valley Angling Association (Approx 80 members) Actual current risk to club – Member deficit

Penrhyn Fishing Club Actual current risk to club – Syndicate – No Waiting List

Conservation Measures

Carcass tagging system and bag limit (OVAA) – suspended due to regulatory withdrawal of support [case study – presentation]

Upper Catchment closed by club 30th September to protect spawning fish.

Maximum 3 fish limit Salmon. Advisory additional measures. OVAA – Spin rule/prohibition on low water [future of rule challenged by byelaws]

Section 3

Well-being Considerations – The NRW Byelaw Impacts (Ref 7) The well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, states clearly what we as a nation are aiming for in terms of well-being in stipulating seven goals for its achievement: The Well-being Goals A Wales of cohesive Communities A more equal Wales A healthier Wales A resilient Wales A Wales of vibrant culture and thriving Welsh Language A globally responsible Wales A prosperous Wales The ‘The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 (‘the Act’) instructs all public bodies including NRW to follow the ‘sustainable development principle’: The five ways of working: Long Term – Prevention – Integration – collaboration – Involvement The Act gives a legally-binding common purpose set within the seven well-being goals. Specified public bodies must work within ‘the Act’, and work together to improve the well-being of Wales. ‘Natural Resources Body for Wales ‘Natural Resources Wales’ is listed in section 6(1) of the Act.’ (1) Having community well-being concerns at the very start of ‘the byelaw’ development process and not seeing those being considered in an astute professional manner by NRW we have considered the likely impacts of ‘the byelaws’ upon communities and therefore well-being, further in this document. ‘Actual’ impacts from the byelaw process have already begun as communities adjust behaviour to socio-political stressors. There appear to be some distinct ‘well-being’ concern paradox. The situation is not a good advert for the promotion of well-being considerations. We find ourselves having to be blunt in providing our position. If the well-being of people; the synergy between man and environment and the opportunity for improvement (in varied ways) now and for the future, are the primary focus of this intent and legislation, then NRW have taken us all down a dead end road in delivering ‘measures’ (byelaws) that were far from a collaborative and integrated development. We adhere to the term ‘measures’ here given there is no evidence following our detailed deliberation of the ‘the byelaws’, that prohibition in this form is of constructive use to Wales natural resources or society. In scrutinising the extent/absence of well-being considerations within NRWs approach we have reviewed:

 Shared Purpose: Shared Future Statutory guidance on the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 – Welsh Government [guidance issued under sections 14, 22(2) and 51(1) of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.] (7)

 The State of Natural Resources Report (SoNaRR): Assessment of the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources. Technical Report. (3)

 Anglesey and Gwynedd Wellbeing Board Report: Gwynedd and Mon Public Services Board 2017 Gwynedd Well-Being Assessment. (11)

 NRW Corporate Plan to 2022: Our Well-being Objectives (1)

The statement below raises immediate warning signs that ‘the byelaw’ development process has failed to be receptive to all considerations.

‘The leadership challenge for’ those within organisations referred to in the act, irrespective of their position within that organisation is ‘to work in a way that improves economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being to help us create a Wales that we want to live in now and in the future. It is a way of thinking and behaving – developing a shared future where we can all work together with a shared purpose. ’ (7) ‘The byelaw’ process within which we have laboured and the resultant byelaw measures, support the notion that NRW have viewed the well-being goals in a limited way. Taking a polarised view of the elements of well-being the environment provides through ecosystem services provision, without considering the full potential of ‘proposals’ to create benefits to wider well-being provision, we are faced with measures incongruous to communities well-being aspirations. This is where NRW has placed us. The simplest measure of this discord is the level of opposition to the byelaws – they are not being opposed on a whim. Not only are their construct failing to provide benefit, but the fear is that they represent a mechanism for causing ill-being. If we are all to play a part in stimulating a means of improving well-being through sustainable principles as the ‘Act’ provides, it is essential that we promote both a secure foundation and incubatory system upon which to build progress. Our shared next few steps must form that transitional process that builds upon and not deconstructs what NRW and communities have achieved. To us, NRWs approach still remains extremely closed and institutionalised and with a narrow vision of well-being, the antithesis of what the ‘Act’ seeks to in-still in public body operations. NRW have not risk assessed their proposals in detail and have applied an irresponsible confidence in their ability to stimulate positive adaption within catchments. This failure leaves us at this point in the process with the very real risk of being faced with an insurmountable problem within our fisheries.

A failure to instigate Sustainable Development Under ‘The Act’, Sustainable Development has been re-defined to aid its function interpretation and delivery. “sustainable development, means the process of improving the economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being of Wales by taking action, in accordance with the sustainable development principle, aimed at achieving the well-being goals.’’ (7) As indicated within the guidance document for public sector organisations: ‘’Carrying out sustainable development does not mean that it is an ‘add-on’… You must use sustainable development to shape what you already do, how you do it, and how you communicate (via reporting) the difference you are making to the achievement of the well-being goals.’’ These are the three aspects of what NRW have to do under the ‘Act’. The critical failing of the ‘measures’ development process is that NRW have failed to collaborate appropriately. In entering the process with pre-conceived plans and preferential delivery mechanisms they have competed to defend these rather than shape innovative ideas and participate constructively in an iterative process. This seems a legacy approach deployed by NRW. Minor adaptions have been made to the original byelaws, however they are superficial and a basic level of scrutiny shows that the byelaws fail to make a meaningful contribution to well-being objectives and perversely bring a high risk of causing ill-being. Not only now, but through a continuum of impact, into the future. We can only assume that NRW have with a polarised view of benefit in the future ignored the present. The WFG Act Guidance document reminds us that ‘Sustainable development is the process of improving well-being.’ If NRW are developing measures that illicit ill-being, then this is not ‘sustainable development’ and those measures must be revised as that is our joint aim and their responsibility under the ‘Act’. We are reminded in the above document that there are ‘many things that determine a person’s quality of life (their well-being)’ stating that they can’ broadly be categorised as’:  Environmental  Economic  Social  Cultural In making these distinctions, it is vital, whilst considering a challenge as deeply rooted in ‘environment’ as the ‘fisheries Management’ one, that we inspect, investigate and comprehend the synergies between all factors in a cross disciplinary way. They are as diverse as we are able and willing to interpret them. Community data is vital in accommodating all aspects of well-being and providing a window upon impact and synergy. NRW have been dismissive and defensive of our attempts to incorporate this information into the process. This challenge may be rooted in environment, but the ‘Act’ in line with our aspirations hinges on our ability to understand better the relationship between peoples quality of life and dependencies of the people to environment relationship. ‘Environmental sociology is a tool we can use to understand the complexity of the problems and find solutions, thus making sustainable development a reality and not just a dream’ (5) The following extract is taken from NRWs Corporate Plan to 2022: ‘Our well-being objectives’:

‘There are significant health issues in Wales. Living in and making use of a good-quality natural environment could help address these as part of a healthy lifestyle and improved physical and mental health. For example, 25% of people will suffer from mental health issues at some point in their lives13, while almost 60% of people in Wales aged 16 or over are overweight or obese and the rate is increasing1.Health inequalities between different parts of Wales are significant. Child obesity is significantly higher in more deprived areas1, 14. Income poverty affects 23% of all people and 30% of people in Wales1. While more than 80% of adults in Wales take part in some type of outdoor recreation at least once a year, only about a quarter do so regularly2. Though half of all children and young people participate in sport three times a week, participation rates reduce dramatically with age1. Around 3% of people volunteer to protect the environment1.’

Angling and angling clubs allow people who otherwise may not participate in other pursuits, to remain active and gain the positive health benefits associated with a sport that can be as extreme or placid as you so wish. We already provide these benefits to Wales. The byelaws risk those contributions to wellbeing in the short to medium terms and beyond.

Anglers recognise the importance of healthy fish stocks and supporting habitats for self- sustaining purposes and to provide ecosystem services to local and global communities today and into the future. Our activities within community catchments and in participating in joint ventures to forward deliberation upon present and future planning illustrate this commitment. We will cover these points in greater detail at the Public Inquiry and make brief comment here in relation to - NRW well-being considerations/pitfalls

 Apparent Silo working – focusing on specific issues without awareness of their connections with other issues.  Over emphasis on certain well-being objectives and future view have led to critical impact on current and near future well-being goals being perceived as inconsequential by NRW.  No indication that risk assessments have been undertaken to quantify impacts on well-being goals – failure to identify byelaw steps conflict with other objectives.  Involving people (Section 5 of the WFG Act) No collaboration or consensus. NRW have not built the measures with the community – they illicit ill-being on the community.

‘Effective involvement of people and communities is at the heart of improving well-being currently and in the future. It recognises the importance of involving people in decisions that affect them. This builds on the Citizen-Centred Governance Principles, National Principles for Public engagement and the National Participation Standards for Children and Young People.’ ‘An important success factor for sustainable development is to obtain greater consensus and strengthen community involvement in both deciding on priorities, and on delivery. ‘ The Act therefore provides the opportunity to rethink how people are involved. (7)

Well-being - Pitfalls and lack of Opportunity

NRW seem to have taken a narrow view of the well-being goals, by over emphasising the environment gain and future view, rather than incorporating all well-being goals equally and considering the transition from present to future. This is not sustainable development as we interpret it. The failure to quantify the risks associated with the byelaws polarises consideration of the byelaws to well-being contribution and very little consideration for negative impacts. The angling community have raised all concerns in relation to the perceived risks and yet NRW remain impartial to it. This is not sustainable development and appears a failure of their duty under the WFG Wales Act 2015 (and to follow best practice.) Imposing ill-being as in this instance (risks/impacts), cannot conceivably be ‘maximising the benefits’ as is stipulated to be the intent under the WFG guidance documents. (7)

Byelaw Impacts - Objectives We have considered NRWs own commitment to achieving well-being goals as stated within their ‘Well-being statement’ 2017/18. This commitment is encapsulated within the ‘objectives’ NRW have set. The full details of how well-being goals e.g. ‘A Prosperous Wales’ are covered within the objectives by NRW are stated in their Well-being Statement (1). Below we have illustrated key consequential impacts related to the byelaw measures in relation to one of NRWs objectives. We believe the inability of ‘the byelaws’ to support well-being considerations and to perversely influence ill-being have been brushed aside by NRW in their superficial consideration of well-being to create the impression that the byelaws carry primarily benefit. There has been no quantitative assessment of the impact ‘the byelaws’ pose to the ‘well-being goals’ in the short, medium or long-term.

NRW Objective1 – ‘Champion the Welsh environment and the sustainable management of Wales’ natural resources’ [Illustration of the risks and impacts due to the proposed byelaws]

A Prosperous Wales Risk to opportunities for employment - Risk to the future of angling for game fish in Wales - Risk to retail outlets (and sole traders) selling fishing equipment and bait - Risk to employment from angling orientated roles; guiding, instruction. - Risk to angling tourism and possibility of becoming net exporter of salmon tourism - Risk to commercial fisheries and land ownership - Risk to employment supported by economic benefits from angling

Research, Education & Learning - Risk to river/fisheries based research and community sourced data - Risk to the future of fisheries management development and progression - Risk to life-experience of young (all) - Risk to formal educational programmes linked to angling - Disempowerment of anglers and angling institutions - Perverse impact upon well-being goals setting a destructive precedent

- A Resilient Wales - Contradictory approach to elements of the principle of sustainability - Non adherence to critical ‘ways of working’ within byelaw development process - NRWs dangerous conviction without due consideration for consequences linked to byelaw prohibitions - Undermining the critical partnerships between regulator and community - Placing biodiversity under risk by underestimating the critical role played by alienated partners - Placing all that ‘NRW do’ under greater pressure by losing voluntary sector ‘good will’ - Failure by NRW to meet the requirements of the current fisheries challenge and establish a realistic mechanism for adaptive change and progression for fisheries. - Failure to recognise the existing socio-economic; socio-political and socio-cultural vulnerabilities of today’s communities and the need to consider all well-being goals as part of the ‘measures’ development process - Reputational damage – inability to in-still requisite values to assist communities manage climate change induced impacts

- A Healthier Wales - Loss of public access to riverine environments - Loss of safe passage through diverse and remote environments - Inability of community to connect with nature and make positive lifestyle choices - Loss of physical benefits associated with angling (method restrictions) - Loss of physical benefits associated with angling (risk to community clubs) - Loss of positive benefits to mental well-being - Negative physical health impacts due to loss of access to pursuit - Negative mental health impacts due to loss of access to cultural values and pursuit - NRW consideration of value of game angling unsupportive – barrier to promotion - Negative health impacts due to relationship between socio-economic impact of byelaw proposals - Compound health impact upon communities of alienation from ‘measure’ development process – disempowerment of communities and associated repercussions - Risk to ‘home waters’ from distal angling syndicates – loss of access to local environments.

- A More Equal Wales - Loss of access to local environments through loss of lease - Loss of access to pursuit due to distorted values of amenity - Loss of accessibility to community angling club - Perverse paradox in that Wales is at risk of becoming equal in its loss - Impact upon participation driving cost of angling up - Danger of angling becoming inaccessible – financial constraint - Wales at disadvantage to other UK countries

- A Wales of Cohesive communities

- Resilience and quality of natural environment inhibited by system failures above. - Disempowerment of community resource - Establishment of a destructive precedent for continued community based initiatives to maintain and enhance the environment for their own well-being

We will not investigate the full scope of the anomalies between ‘NRWs’ Objectives for well-being and likely consequences linked to ‘the byelaw measures’, however site the above as an illustration. We may expand on these discontinuities with the requirements of the WFG Act within our presentation at the ‘Public Inquiry’.

O3 Improve resilience and quality of our ecosystems O5 Help people live healthier and more fulfilled lives O6 Promote successful and responsible business, using natural resources without damaging them. O7 Develop NRW into an excellent organisation, delivering first class customer service

Additional Comment – The State of Natural Resources Report (3)

Inspection of NRWs SoNaRR report full document and the ‘risk register’, raises concerns in relation to their definition of sustainability as it is evident it is resource exploitative; which it seemingly utilises to explain its approach to renewable energy.

We may wish to pursue this consideration as it potentially introduces a paradox in relation to NRWs draconian approach to fish exploitation and proportionality and fairness considerations.

SECTION 4

Consideration of Proof of Evidence NRW/1

Below are comments specifically in relation to Peter Goughs (NRW) Proof of evidence NRW/1. [Full consideration is not presented in this paper to avoid duplication with CPWF Proof of Evidence.]

Consideration of Section 9.6

NRW has considered alternative and ‘less restrictive’ measures as part of its overall assessment of the need for the All Wales Byelaws.

NRW have only given due consideration to more inhibitory measures to stimulate the impression that the ‘byelaws’ are a lenient version of control and thus appropriate. This juxtaposition is the inappropriate one as a set of measures, such as those proposed by CPWF to Welsh Government and NRW, arguably stand as the only, ‘real’ means of instilling widespread positive change without the consequential negative impacts that the byelaw measures hold to illicit-ill being.

It is only through objective consideration of CPWF proposals against the byelaws that the legitimate inadequacy of ‘NRWs byelaws’ is apparent. This can only be achieved through:

‘We believe these approaches will become critical in dealing with the complexities of natural resources and ecosystems and their contribution to well-being. In particular they can be adapted, discussed, improved and tailored to cope with local variation, uncertainty of evidence and to take account of stakeholder views as part of a deliberative process. (3)

This has not been done.

Definition: “Deliberation” is defined as the critical examination of an issue involving the weighing of reasons for and against a course of action. In the instance of the fisheries challenge, this is group deliberation. Thus, we define a “deliberative process” as a process allowing a group of actors to receive and exchange information, to critically examine an issue, and to come to an agreement which will inform decision making.

Table within Section 9.7 with no table listing. [NRW Statements in italics]

We have scrutinised NRWs comments below and responded to them with objective comment

Option (NRW Strengths) Weaknesses Current Byelaw Proposals Unpopular with some  Based on flawed anglers assessment.  Significant number of Misleading statement – The rivers compliant with majority of anglers in Conservation Limits consultation have expressed irrespective of formal extreme opposition to the recalculation following byelaw proposals. CPWF Statisticians report.  Would severely restrict angler’s ability Addresses current stock deficits to participate in their Consequential impacts of pastime. byelaws not considered  Would stop some anglers from being Maintains fisheries for able to participate in recreation their pastime.  Would STOP most anglers from  Amenity value of participating in their fishery significantly sport without distorted. significant limitation

on their pursuit;  Anglers using bait emotional and only ousted from their physical impact during pursuit. participation)

 Destroy traditional  Recreational value values linked to depleted preventing fishing for Salmonids. bait fishing as option.  Place present and

future angling in many Maintains socioeconomic of wales, rivers at risk. benefit  Disproportional and  Non Factual un-enforceable Statement response to current and revised evidence. Keeps anglers on the  Poses an immediate river banks risk to the socio- economic benefits of  Misleading statement fishing  Triggers immediate Consistent methods proposed disengagement with for salmon angling will be local fisheries easily understood by anglers interests  Undermines the Misleading statement as the resilience of angling diversity of present rules are clubs to change. viewed as a positive contribution to catchment specific management and  Would stimulate an diversity of the pastime increase in poaching NRW ] activity.

Closure of fisheries in targeted Saves all fish and maximises rivers spawner abundance Ends local socioeconomic benefit arising from fishing Consequential impacts not considered – irrational Dis-engagement with local confidence in measure fisheries interests

Optimum time for initial stock  Would stop anglers’ recovery ability to participate in their pastime within Consequential impacts not affected catchments considered [Wales].  Destroy traditional values linked to fishing for Salmonids.

 Place present and

future angling in wales rivers’ at risk.  Disproportional and un-enforceable response to current and revised evidence.  Loss of primary source of enforcement data.  Poaching activity would increase.  Complete loss of catch return data set – loss of evidence based stock assessment.

Ban on all bait fishing and/or Eliminates mortality of fish due Alienates part of the fishing further hook controls to fishing with methods community incompatible with safe C&R fishing Contested statement – Alienates most of the angling

community as those who don’t fish with bait usually Number of foul hooked fish express solidarity with fellow would vastly increase with anglers. Many of North Wales higher levels of mortality rivers are traditionally fished with worm

Doesn’t include fishery closure Removal of bait fishing option Potentially increases revenue would necessitate immediate for fisheries removal of club rule to prevent spinning under low

water conditions for some Misleading and distorted clubs – which in turn would statement – Fisheries cause a significant increase prevented from using bait in foul hooking of fish, both would: unintentional and intentional Lose a traditional and (poachers). important method option. Lose club members. Lose the ability to fish high spate conditions – the most guarded of fishing experiences for traditional Potentially discriminatory anglers. against elderly and/or infirm Lost Revenue. anglers and young anglers

Consideration of Proof of Evidence NRW/1A

Below are comments specifically in relation to Peter Goughs (NRW) Proof of evidence NRW - DOCUMENT NRW/1A

Whether the measures proposed in the byelaws are necessary, proportionate and reasonable in view of fish stocks throughout Wales

 There is no evidence that C&R results in stock recovery  The primary reason for this is that habitat, including water quality and quantity considerations will always be the primary control on stock.  In 2009 it was stated by the then head of fisheries in EAW {North} that it was unlikely that additional adult spawners in the catchment would result in significant stock increases. This was due primarily to the controls imposed by limited spawning habitat and incubation habitat.  Following detailed discussions between angling clubs and EAW a number of precautionary measures were however agreed to. These included:

1. Bag Limits Implementation of the first carcass tagging system in Wales for kept Salmon and a fixed bag limit. This was implemented primarily as both the clubs and EAW recognised that some anglers exceeded a reasonable take of fish. Albeit ‘reasonable take’ is still a philosophical construct and one that puts a stop to the legitimacy of the relationship between effort and reward. In parallel it must also be remembered that that very effort results in the only measure of adult fish stock – the ‘catch returns’- for most rivers, therefore the construct of this ethical argument has its weaknesses. It was also apparent that local salmon was available for sale and whilst most originated from poachers without rod licenses, the likelihood of a small minority of anglers selling surplus fish was causing a rift between the members of the angling community.

2. Establishing Positive Ethos in relation to the necessity to limit catch and keep. As EAW were the first to point out certain anglers caught significant numbers of fish, the clubs requested that it be EAW who spoke to them to air concerns – albeit no legal offence was being committed. EAW stated they would not do this as it would be viewed as victimisation. The clubs therefore have done their bit and intensified their initiatives to eradicate blurred lines between environmentally sensitive angler, ‘fishmonger’ and poacher and make very clear angling outside of the legitimacy of the rules and collective ethos is not acceptable. All anglers seek the freedom to fish, but most accept freedom should not encompass freedom to illicit unreasonable harm to the pursuit, its enjoyment and the impact on fish stocks.

The Afon Ogwen is one of many rivers where both angling and poaching has played an equal part in the cultural heritage of the locality. It may have tried a little too hard to sustain the now outdated perception of the poacher as a ’lovable rogue’, but the open and very honest discussions have been had with those who carried that label for a while and they and we have learnt from that honesty. Whilst an older generation of poachers have either given up their trade or traded it in for a rod and permit, it is apparent that a new era of poacher has replaced them, and unfortunately one of little caring for anything or anyone with a good grasp for the legal loopholes that they can jump through. Whilst these criminals no longer seem to inhabit the rivers immediate communities, and whilst there are migratory fish to sell, these opportunists will always be present to supply a black market in fish.

Catch and release will never apply to them, irrespective of any potential benefit and no law will make the slightest difference in their actions. The only deterrent, is angler presence and enforcement potential, but unfortunately, due to this criminal element, this is one of the reasons 100% catch and release is an unrealistic ideology and this must be recognised if we are to collectively sustain fish stocks.

The entire construct of 100% catch and release is a couple of red herrings. Firstly it is an illegitimate tool to stimulate significant stock recovery. 100% mandatory C&R will not cause significant elevation of stocks. Secondly, nor does it play a legitimate compliment to it as NRW are unleashing a host of risks upon the wellbeing goals stipulated within the wellbeing of Future Generations Act by including it in their measures. There has been little acknowledgement of these risks by NRW and no objective risk assessment of their policies to quantify their impacts. 3. Encouragement of lower impact angling necessitating greater challenge and lower catch. 4. Agreement to sustain a club rule that no spinning would be allowed below certain level markers on the rivers to avoid foul hooking fish during low flows. Also that smaller spinners should be used during low water in the period after which bait fishing ceases (Oct 7th). 5. Agreement to sustain a club instigated kerbed season in the upper river to protect Autumn fish 1st October onwards. 6. Agreement to sustain a ban on spinning during the mandatory catch and release period Oct 18th – 31st inclusive. 7. Penrhyn Fishing Club also sustained a rule to ban the use of prawn for the entire season and the general recognition that their upper water was fished very lightly during the late season so as not to place undue pressure on coloured fish.

NRW - DOCUMENT NRW/1A 4.2 Stipulates ‘The Management Target adopted is for adult stocks to exceed their annual Conservation Limit in at least four of every five years. [As stipulated within CEFAS/NASCO Guidance]

Confusion has been cast by NRW over this subject in the last year as they have been utilising an alternative Management Target – the two Conflicting statements in document NRW/1A (4.2 and 5.1 below) illustrate their own confusion over this matter.

7.1 a The Byelaws could not cause the optimisation of spawning populations. Consequential risks not considered. Were the Byelaws to be implemented, illegal fishing activity would increase and be non manageable. Natural predation rates would increase. Mortality of caught fish would increase.

On the River Ogwen, the current primary limitation on spawning is:

1) Available habitat/variable habitat 2) Lack of successful enforcement and prosecution of poaching activity 3) Lack of measures to tackle natural predation of fish eggs and juveniles 4) Barriers to migration

The following non-factual statements (in red) will be treated as clerical errors.

NRW - DOCUMENT NRW/1A 7.2 is not a factual statement.

NRW - DOCUMENT NRW/1A 7.2 a – is not a factual statement.

NRW - DOCUMENT NRW/1A 7.2 b (a) (b) (c)* – inclusively – are not factual statements.

NRW - DOCUMENT NRW/1A 7.2 c is not a factual statement. NRW - DOCUMENT

NRW/1A 7.2 d is not a factual statement.

NRW - DOCUMENT NRW/1A 7.3 (overall omission) changes to Sea Trout measures omitted

NRW - DOCUMENT NRW/1A 8.1 b – Spurious statement linked to point above *

NRW - DOCUMENT NRW/1A 7.4 there is a 5 year interim review in order to monitor performance of the All Wales Byelaws.

Given the primary impact of ‘the byelaws’ would be to restrict the freedom of anglers to fish and constriction of clubs ability to be resilient to change, whilst distorting catch data, it is hard to envisage how NRWs proposed review would not be undermined. As stock assessment is listed separately by them in section 7.4 there is little left to assess.

Nothing within the byelaw proposals provides a solution to combating the contributory factors of stock variability, it would be false accounting to attribute alterations in stock to the byelaws. Real progress can only be made if environments are given the adequate degree of restoration and management and shared enforcement resource is improved. The evidence based system that NRW aspires to also stand on the brink of collapse – if the byelaws are imposed the system catch return data hangs in the balance.

The primary impact of the byelaws is already evident in their ability to drive anglers away. The byelaws impact – its risks, linked to society and environment alike have not been quantified by NRW in this process. Merely cast aside in weak hypothesis and a blatant disregard for undertaking any meaningful assessment of the negative impacts. NRWs reputation hangs in the balance. If NRWs measure of performance success comes down to prosecutions of members of a community at present working hard to achieve fish stock resilience, the ethical wisdom of this approach is once again drawn into question.

NRW - DOCUMENT NRW/1A 8.1 d – Does not asses the true impact: the imposition of the ban on worming for Salmon and ban on use of any other bait bar the use of shrimp and prawn in late season ousts any angler using worm and shrimp/prawn to target Salmon from angling using these methods from the river from the start of the season until the end of August and limits their opportunity to fish to a shrimp/prawn option only September 1st to October 17th (in most instances).

There is no reason why any bait method should increase mortality if adapted appropriately. It is not the method that kills fish. The issue is education and mentoring not method perse.

It should be noted that local suppliers of shrimp have been unable to supply this bait for the last 2 fishing seasons and shrimp are now supplied primarily from Ireland. Anglers who fish for Salmon using a worm only and restrict their angling to this method only are ousted from their pursuit.

NRW - DOCUMENT NRW/1A 8.1 e Sea Trout stocks on the Ogwen are considered to be healthy. Imposition of a slot limit for Sea Trout is not necessary. The number of large Sea Trout caught on the river every year is small even though significant numbers are often seen. Given the river has limited water appropriate to fly fishing for Sea Trout by night and even less appropriate access, the main reason for few catches is thought to be the limited time period spent by anglers fishing for these fish in appropriate water and the allusive nature of larger fish. An additional contribution to this evidence is that many anglers on the river report to have infrequently accidentally fouled fish illustrating their presence, however habit to ignore bait and lure under lower water conditions. Under spate conditions opportunity to successfully catch larger sea trout on the Ogwen is improved and can prove to be the opportunity to catch a large trophy fish when Salmon remain elusive. Whilst most anglers would be inclined to return large fish, it is not considered as positive an action as returning larger salmon and in this context is considered the straw that broke the cammels back given it infers in this basket of measures removes the primary intent of most anglers to catch a once in a lifetime trophy fish with a keep option available.

Given NRW statement: NRW - DOCUMENT NRW/1A 8.1 d. The proposals for seasonal use of shrimp and prawn will extend fishing opportunity whilst not increasing post- C&R mortality, NRW have no justification for the banning of this method of fishing. It is considered by most anglers that shrimp/prawn fishing is the ‘half way’ medium between spinning and fly fishing both in the context of its suitability and technical dynamics and within a certain range of flows and in terms of potential risk to fish, as does worming, has its place in terms of its propriety to certain river conditions and is a lesser risk to fish mortality in low flows than spinning for instance.

Re-instatement of the prawn/shrimp method does not offer an alternative to anglers who consider themselves wormers. Nor does it offer an alternative at all to those who would fish the raging flows of high spate conditions.

Firstly it is only a partial temporal substitution of 1.5 months – during the shortest days of the fishing season when few with daytime commitments can take the opportunity to fish. And therefore does not in reality mitigate the impact of the bait ban in any significant way.

If the primary reason for NRWs decision to re-instate this option for this short period is to allow people with physical disability and infirmity to participate, then surely the remainder of the season without this option discriminates against those very people. It also shows very poor judgement given these are invariably the windiest, wettest, coldest and darkest months of our angling season. If this is NRWs definition of safeguarding wellbeing, there is both a failing in their logic and humility [quote statement from nrw Board paper or appendix].

The banning of bait fishing is not justified. This approach will not achieve desired outcomes. There would be extensive impacts upon individual and community wellbeing that cannot be justified.

9.2 Moreover, NRW have carefully considered the socioeconomic impacts of the All Wales Byelaws.

NRW have not undertaken a meaningful assessment of the socio-economic impact of the byelaw proposals or the likely impact of the byelaws themselves, now and into the future.

NRW have not proposed to close any Welsh river to angling and will keep this under review as stocks continue to be annually assessed.

There is very little difference between depriving angling of its worth and closing a river.

The former is proven to stimulate low uptake of the pursuit in particular on North Walian spate rivers. Neither action offers the angling community the means of sustaining their pursuit or institutions. There are already instances where anglers prefer to vacate a river rather than fish it on unfavourable and distorted terms:

 Anglers on the Ogwen rarely fish for Salmon pre June 16th – Those who do fish are usually targeting sea-trout or brown trout.

They refrain from their pursuit 1. Because its amenity value does not offer adequate reward in relation to license costs and personal values. 2 Because they are willing to play their part in stock protection. 3. Because part of the fishing season retains the amenity value they require to participate during an alternative period.

 Almost no anglers fish the October extension period on the Ogwen – which is exclusively for Salmon and fly fishing only. Knowing the likelihood that poachers would access the water under the guise of legitimate anglers within this period if spinning were allowed as an option, clubs remain resolute that the extension period remain fly fishing only?

 Ogwen Valley Angling Association self-imposed an early close season on the upper catchment to protect the primary spawning grounds. Not even the offer of C&R fly only fishing for a season drew anglers to the water. It remains a resolute conservation zone after the month of September.

Drained of its innate values, fishing for migratory fish has little draw for most anglers. Empowered, they are shown to make the right decisions and ingrain them within catchment and club specific rules and systems.

We are able to synergise the needs of pursuit with conservation needs so that one does not threaten the long term resilience of the other under the principles of equity and sustainability.

NRW are basing their approach on an ideology and the linearity of their vision is conservation biased and without due consideration for the wider consideration of the principles of sustainability with attention to appropriate considerations for the wellbeing of current and future generations.

We will make any further comments related to this paper at the Public Enquiry

Statement of Truth I hereby declare that:

This proof of evidence includes all the facts which I regard as being relevant to the opinions that I have expressed and that the inquiry’s attention has been drawn to any matter which would affect the validity of that opinion; I believe the facts that I have stated in this proof of evidence are true and that the opinions I have expressed are correct; and I understand my duty to the inquiry to help it with matters within my expertise and I have complied with that duty.

Reuben Woodford Signature

*Comments from Mr Evan Jones, Penrhyn Fishing Club and community of Rachub (Council) incorporated within the body of the document in Section 4.

References

1.NRW Corporate Planto 2022: Our Well-being Objectives 2.Ogwen SAP-E-829861.PDF- SAP APRIL 1999 3.The State of Natural Resources Report (SoNaRR): Assessment of the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources. Technical Report. 4.G-DAE Working Paper No. 00-04: “Basic Principles of Sustainable Development” Jonathan M. Harris Copyright 2000 Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University 5.Sustainability through the Lens of Environmental Sociology Md Saidul Islam www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability – Environmental Sociology).

6.Campaign for the Protection of Welsh Fisheries (John Eardley; Chris White)

7. Shared Purpose: Shared Future Statutory guidance on the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 – Welsh Government [ guidance issued under sections 14, 22(2) and 51(1) of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.]

8.Fisheries.co.uk

9.[FOI – NRW –Ref:ATI-15944a09/10/18] NRW2018

10.David Allen Green, (New Statesman), ‘The Political Addiction to mere prohibitions’

11.Anglesey and Gwynedd Wellbeing Board Report: Gwynedd and Mon Public Services Board Gwynedd Well-Being Assessment.

12. Fearon, I Fact Sheet, National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy. 1998