Document GM2: Evidence of Guy Mawle, Appendix 1: Response to consultation on NRW byelaws

Q. 1c) Please tell us how you found out about the Catch Controls consultation:

√ From Natural Resources Wales RESPONSE FORM Catch Controls: byelaws for Nets and Rods 2017

We would like to find out your views on the proposed byelaw changes to catch controls to help protect vulnerable salmon and sea trout stocks and fisheries. By providing this information we will be better able to understand the context to the answers that you provide to our consultation. We also want to quantify and be sure that we have received responses from all sectors that may be affected by, or have an interest in managing our fisheries. This information will therefore help us to accurately record who has responded to this consultation. Your details will only be kept for this consultation and any future work directly related to this.

Please note this is only a consultation on the proposed catch control byelaws. Any objections to the 2017 Net Limitation Order should be made separately to Welsh Government. By Post to: Jeremy Frost, Marine and Fisheries Division, Inland Fisheries Strategy, CP2, North Core, 2Nd Floor Pillar, MO2, Cathays Park, Cardiff, CF10 3NQ . Or by email to [email protected] Section 1

Q. 1a) About Yourself Please tell us which one of the following categories best describes your primary interest in salmon and sea trout. √ I am an angler. I have landed almost 500 salmon from the River Usk so offer extensive practical expertise on angling. √ I own or lease salmon and sea trout fishing. I am a part owner of Upper Llangybi Fishery and was recently Secretary of Isca Angling Club which fishes four stretches of the Usk. √ Other (please specify). … Fisheries consultant; member of the Usk Local Fisheries Group. If more than one of these categories applies to you please select all relevant categories. Q. 1b) What part of the country do you have an interest in? Please tell us where you primarily fish for salmon or where the salmon that support your business are from.  South east Wales (Usk and Wye) GM2/1

Section 2

Q2a. Do you agree with Natural Resources Wales salmon and sea trout stock assessments?

Please tick the relevant box √ Yes

Please explain your answer.

‘NASCO has agreed that management of homewater fisheries should be based on the status of individual river stocks…’ (NASCO, 2009). My comments relate to the River Usk.

The annual assessment for salmon for 2016 in relation to estimated spawning escapement, based on rod catch, indicates that the Usk is: 'Probably Not at Risk' is stable and has a slight, if statistically insignificant, positive trend. Nonetheless, there is no clear evidence that it will move to being 'Not at Risk' as required under the Decision Structure in Annex 4. It is a little perplexing that it is not projected, by this method, to be 'Not at Risk' in 2021, as it apparently exceeded its Management Target on average over the 5 years to 2016 by almost a million eggs and there is a slight upward trend (see Table 7 on p49 of the Technical case; also Table 11 on p86).

My preliminary estimates of the 2017 rod catch, based on the season’s catch at index fisheries and personal catch per day, indicate that spawning escapement will be as good or slightly better than that for 2016. If so, the next assessment for the Usk’s salmon stock may improve.

Were this the only form of assessment, there would be no case for mandatory catch and release on the Usk, though there probably still is a case for the restrictions on fishing methods and gear to improve survival of released fish. However, there are two other aspects of the stock that should also be considered.

Firstly, the level and trend in juvenile densities at temporal electrofishing sites appear worrying. Both the salmon fry and parr densities show a statisticaly significant negative trend (see p56 of the Technical case, also the graphs of these from Annex 3 shown below). There are only 13 such sites (I think), mostly on the tributaries and they are only 50 metres long so it's hard to know how representative they are of juvenile stocks in the catchment as a whole. Though GM2/2

juvenile densities may be highest in some tributaries, most production probably occurs in the main river (salmon spawn all the way down to the tidal water) due to the much greater area. Temporal sites are placed on tributaries and the upper reaches for practical reasons. Quantitative electrofishing with stop nets is not possible on most of the main river.

The downward trend in fry production is derived largely two years, 2003 and 2016. Otherwise, it appears fairly stable.

The high densities in 2003 (a year of extreme low flows) may be misleading, they could actually reflect a reduced wetted area rather than an high abundance of fry in the thirteen sites. It may also be that at low flows, the habitat in these sites was more suited to fry so attracted fish from elsewhere. What is clear is that

GM2/3

there were very low numbers of fry in 2016 not just at these sites but, from the WUF survey in 2016, right across the catchment.

There is however, a very clear downward trend in parr densities (the densities are logarithmic to enable statistical analysis, so the decline in actual numbers is much greater. The scatter of densities is wide and there are several outliers which are probably having an excessive impact on the significance of the trend , i.e. 2002, 2003, 2014 & 2016. Nevertheless, even if these are excluded, it's pretty clear that there will still be a downward trend in parr densities. I used a different form of statistical analysis of these data last November (Mawle 2016) which also pointed clearly to decline in parr densities, with 2016 being the worst.

There is, of course, another possible explanation for falling parr densities (other than the extremes including 2016) - namely that an increasing proportion of parr are smolting after one year, i.e. as S1s. We have no information on that point for the Usk salmon. Elsewhere across England and Wales, smolt age has fallen but this trend then reversed, at least on some rivers. This is described in the background report to the last annual assessment (Cefas/EA/NRW 2017).

Verbal reports to the Usk Local Fisheries Group indicate that, while 1+ parr densities in 2017 are low as expected (from the 2015 spawning), the 0+ fry (from the 2016 spawning) are exceptionally large and many are likely to smolt after one year. If they can migrate in 2018 without excessive losses, they may compensate to some extent for the failure of the 2015 spawning.

The other feature of the stock that should give concern is the decline of the grilse component which may be hitting salmon abundance in particular parts of the catchment. It may be prudent to give the grilse component, which is in part genetically based, extra protection.

In conclusion, I suggest that the data point to a need for:  additional action to protect stocks only in the short-term, especially to counter the impact of the failure of the 2015 spawning which seems likely to hit stocks of returning adults, to some extent, from next year though mainly in 2019 and 2020.  annual assessment to detect whether further action is required.

References:

GM2/4

Cefas, EA & NRW (2017). Annual assessment to salmon stocks and fisheries in England & Wales. Standing report on methods, approaches and wider stock conservation and management considerations.

Mawle, G.W. (2016). Salmon rod catch and stock status on the River Usk 2016. Note for Usk Local Fisheries Group Meeting – November 2016. Wye & Usk Foundation. 6pp.

NASCO (2009). Guidelines for the management of salmon fisheries. 6pp

Section 3

Q3a. Do you support the proposed Net fishing byelaws?

Please tick the relevant box

√ No

If no, please state on what grounds your objection is based.

Summary for the net byelaws: I object to the exemption of the Blackrock lave net fishery as:  This recreational mixed stock fishery exploits a range of salmon stocks including the Usk’s, which needs reduced exploitation.  It could continue but only catch-and-release in line with other Welsh salmon fisheries.  The putative heritage value could be maintained, indeed potentially enhanced, were the netsmen willing to fish catch & release.  The future of the fishery lies with the netsmen. If they say it is threatened, it is only because they want to retain their catch; for others, this will be a criminal offence.  NRW/Welsh Government should take a consistent approach and include the fishery in the general requirement for net fisheries to release salmon.

 Even if the netsmen did chose not to fish for the duration of the measures, it is not clear that any loss to others will be significant.

My comments are confined to the proposed exemption of the netsmen fishing in the Blackrock lave net fishery in the Severn Estuary. This is clear and unwarranted discrimination between the treatment of these recreational fishermen and salmon anglers on the Usk, and indeed netsmen elsewhere in Wales.

The Technical case states that the supporting stock is ‘Probably not at Risk’ but . does not state what the supporting stock is. It is clear from tagging studies (see ‘Figure 5’ below redrawn from Swain 1982) that Usk salmon will be caught in this mixed stock fishery, and indeed, as long recognised by the Environment Agency, GM2/5

in other net fisheries further up the Severn estuary. The Welsh Government has also recognised this in a letter dated 11 November 2004 to Mr. M. Morgan, representing Blackrock lave netsmen, stating that theirs is a mixed stock fishery.

If it were to become a criminal offence for anglers, including those on the Usk, and netsmen across the rest of Wales to kill a salmon, it would be discriminatory to allow the Blackrock lave netsmen to continue to kill their catch.

The 8 lave netsmen, paying slightly less for their licence than an angler, are apparently to be entitled to take up to 15 salmon between them a year. At that rate, were the 600 or so anglers to be allowed to do the same, they could kill over a thousand, i.e. more than their entire catch on the Usk. The rate of almost 2 salmon a season is also nearly twice that permitted for lave netsmen fishing in the adjacent English part of the Severn estuary. The latter is also part of the mixed stock fishery exploitating Usk and Wye salmon and needs to be reviewed in the light of the concern over salmon stocks in Usk as well as the Wye, especially given the status of both rivers and the estuary itself as SACs.

So what are the grounds for the discrimination? Apparently, it is because the lave net fishery is deemed a ‘heritage’ fishery but this is a superficial and weak justification. There can be no doubt that the Blackrock netsmen themselves value the heritage of their fishery and derive much pleasure both from fishing and from their interpretative efforts (http://www.blackrocklavenets.co.uk/ ). Indeed these efforts to maintain the heritage value of their fishery are to be applauded, though whether this generates any significant benefit to the local tourist economy is another matter. However, it should not be assumed that the heritage value would be lost if the Blackrock lave netsmen were not allowed to kill salmon.

There is no more need for the Blackrock lave netsmen to kill their catch than there is for Usk and Wye anglers to do so.

The lave net fishery, like rod fisheries and some other net fisheries, could continue to operate but as a catch-and-release fishery. The netsmen do not need to stop fishing. Some, like anglers faced with catch and release, might choose to stop but, from their interpretative material, they value their activity for itself so some at least are likely to continue fishing and associated activities.

As indicated by the netsmen themselves, they are recreational fishermen, like anglers, fishing primarily for the activity itself rather than to make a living from the sale of the catch though perversely, they are still allowed to sell their catch. If an angler sold his catch he would commit a criminal offence.

Of course, the Blackrock netsmen may say now that they won’t fish unless they can kill their catch but this appears to be some attempt at blackmail to obtain special dispensation to kill salmon.

The problem therefore seems to be not with the requirement for catch & release but with the attitude of the Blackrock lave netsmen. The Technical case notes (7.1.1 on p102) that the netsmen of the Teifi coracle fishery, another heritage fishery, are already releasing salmon voluntarily in the summer because of

GM2/6

concerns with stocks. It should be noted that the entangling net used in the coracle fishery is far less suitable for catch-and-release than the lave net. Furthermore the latter might be made knotless so as to be less damaging, as angler’s landing nets are now required to be. Lave netsmen have, for convenience, already adapted their nets to the use of modern netting materials.

If ‘continuing to kill fish whilst stocks are depleted present an unacceptable risk’ for the Usk (p130, Technical case), measures should be applied fairly and consistently, between netsmen and anglers.

The Welsh Government has already stated, in the letter to the Blackrock lave netsmen in November 2004, that it does not accept that it is necessary to kill salmon to demonstrate lave netting techniques to visitors. Indeed, the Welsh Government said that, to enhance interpretative activity, it would be willing to investigate:  changing the weekly close time from the weekend to weekdays; and,  provided the netsmen did not kill their salmon, extending the fishing season.

Neither have changed so presumably the netsmen have not responded positively to this offer. As such it seems clear that killing their salmon rather than maximising tourism and heritage values is their first priority. Indeed, the letter indicates that the netsmen had said they were not willing to fish without killing salmon.

One might argue that the impact on stocks of the Blackrock net fishery is small but that argument could apply equally any individual rod fishery on the Usk. Clearly, it would be unacceptable to allow one rod fishery to continue to take salmon whilst making it a criminal offence elsewhere on the river. Why should such a disparity be allowed between the netsmen and anglers?

Even if all the Blackrock netsmen temporarily chose to stop fishing, it is far from clear that the scale of the loss, whilst the measures were in place, would be significant. The Blackrock lave net fishery may be the only one left in Wales but it operates on the border and is really part of the wider tradition of salmon fisheries, including other lave net fisheries, in the Severn estuary. This is made clear in the leaflet produced by the Environment Agency (EA, 2004b). There were 25 other lave net licences issued by the Environment Agency for the Severn Estuary in 2016, and another 5 more licences for lave netting in North West England. The Technical case, p121, quoting from an Environment Agency study (EA, 2004), notes that heritage value is not dependent on maintaining the current size of the net fishery,

What is not made clear in the Technical case is that this study, and its conclusions, related not only to coracle nets but to the net fisheries of the Severn Estuary, including the lave nets.

GM2/7

The number of licensed lave netsmen in the Blackrock fishery has been maintained since the 1950s, despite the crash in local salmon stocks and increasing restrictions.

To avoid discrimination and contrary to the proposed exemption, NRW should impose catch-and-release on the Blackrock lave net fishery for as long as all- season mandatory catch & release is imposed on rod fisheries fishing the same stocks. NRW should also, as previously offered in 2004, investigate changes to the weekly close time and the close season for catch-and-release fishing if it is clear that this would be beneficial to tourism.

Stock status in the Usk and Wye is reviewed annually so, as hoped, stocks recover, an exemption to the proposed Welsh byelaw. However, given the concerns about the juvenile stocks on the Usk, this constraint is likely to be needed for several years, until 2020, at least.

References: EA (2004b). A dip into history. Lave nets in the Severn Estuary. Leaflet.

Swain, A. (1982). The migration of salmon (Salmo salar L.) from three rivers entering the Severn Estuary. J. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer 40(1), 76-82

GM2/8

GM2/9

Q3b Do you support the proposed rod fishing byelaws? . Please tick the relevant box

√ No

If no, please state on what grounds your objection is based.

Summary for rod byelaws: For the Usk, I support additional mandatory measures but object to:  The 10-year timescale;  The application of a 60cm upper limit only to sea trout, thereby creating a loophole that they could be killed as non-migratory trout; and

 The inconsistencies, inadequacies and lack of a precautionary approach in the proposed constraints on hook number and size which need to be substantially revised.  If the latter are not addressed, options for other measures than mandatory catch & release should be considered.

My comments relate primarily to fishing on the Usk, though they some have wider rele vance.

Support for mandatory measures

Whatever they are, measures now need to be mandatory and consistent to make a significant additional contribution to protecting the stock and the fishery.

 Asking for voluntary action is not new. It has been encouraged with success for many years, up to a point. There is no certainty that significant further reductions in angling mortality can be achieved this way.  Those who want to keep measures voluntary actually wish to continue to kill at least some salmon.  The benefits from measures to reduce angling mortality will not be large. Leaving them as voluntary will make them ineffectual.  Allowing some anglers, or netsmen, to take salmon is inherently unfair to those who release their fish and adopt best practice to maximise survival.  If some are allowed to carry on killing salmon, it cannot be assumed that those who have been releasing all salmon will continue to do so.

Byelaw 2: For the Usk, as indicated above, the imposition of the byelaws for 10 years are not warranted by the stock assessment. It is precautionary to apply measures up to and including the 2020 season. Recognising administrative constraints and also the close links between the salmon stocks on the Wye and

GM2/10

Usk, byelaws on catch & release on the Usk might extend to 2021 so that they would be reviewed at the same time as the Wye byelaws.

By that time, NRW should have moved, in line with international best practice and following the lead in Scotland and Ireland, to a system of prompt annual assessment followed by the imposition of annual measures applied river-by- river. Such measures should be consulted once in advance of assessments, not annually which would be an excessive and unwarranted administrative burden. As demonstrated with assistance from NRW staff for the Usk for 2013 to 2016 (e.g. Mawle, 2016), a prompt and acceptably accurate annual prediction of spawning escapement is practical within a couple of weeks of the end of the season. Given the declining efficacy of the EA/NRW rod catch return system, particularly poor in the 2015 and 2016 seasons, this assessment may have been more accurate than the declared catch reported by the EA/NRW, as well as being available four months earlier. In 2015 and 2016, returns were recorded by the EA/NRW for fewer than 60% of salmon/ sea trout rod licences issued.

Byelaw 4: Mandatory catch-and-release would be a fair and sensible option provided that better measures than proposed are taken on gear to ensure that mortality is minimised. See specific concerns on other byelaws below. If adequate measures on gear are not taken, alternatives such as a fly-only rule in the latter part of the season might be more effective at boosting spawning escapement, including the grilse component.

Byelaw 6: This should apply to both forms of Salmo trutta. Differentiating between non-migratory brown trout and sea trout can be difficult, if the latter have been in the river for some time. Indeed it could only be proved that a trout had been to sea by scale analysis. There is a risk therefore that this byelaw could be unenforceable and sea trout being taken ostensibly as large, non- migratory brown trout. If the byelaw was applied to all trout, it would make little difference to legitimate anglers as very few non-migratory trout are caught in Welsh rivers over 60cms (about 4.5lbs) and they would be very poor eating. It should be noted that the lower size limit already applies to both sea trout and non-migratory brown trout.

Byelaw 7: It makes no sense to allow bait fishing for sea trout from 1 May on the Usk given the proposed ban on worm for non-migratory trout as well as for salmon. There is little, if any, bait fishing specifically for sea trout on the Usk system and it would merely provide a loophole to worm fish for other salmonids.

With regard to banning the use of worm for non-migratory trout on the Usk and all its tributaries, i.e.

GM2/11

There seems to be no justification given for this. While I would not be affected by it, others will be, particularly young anglers fishing club water on tributaries, notably the Ebbw and Lwyd systems.

Byelaw 8 – Hooks: This byelaw needs serious revision and, if necessary, readvertising because:  It maintains a poor and little recognised existing byelaw; and is confusing, if not ambiguous, as a result.  It is also inconsistent in what it makes a criminal offence relative to what is achieved; fails to recognise differences in impact between different types of lure, namely fly, spinner and plugs; and is, in several aspects, insufficiently precautionary.  The outcome, if it stands, is likely to be that a significant number of salmon and sea trout will not survive release, reducing the already small, benefits that can be achieved through the other proposed byelaws.  If fish have to be returned badly injured, it will bring the requirement for release into disrepute. And as noted by the latest scientific review (Lennox et al, 2017), quoted in the Technical case: ‘Physical injury caused by hooking is the most important predictor of post-release fisheries mortality’.

Specifically, NRW should revise the long-standing, existing byelaw included in the new byelaws as:

The original byelaw was designed to help prevent foul-hooking of salmonids. It is rarely, if ever cited nowadays, and widely contravened by pike fishermen and also some salmon fishermen. Lures are commonly on sale and used in Wales and the borders that contravene it.

Note that there is an error in the second to last line of the new byelaw, which presumably should read as the original, i.e. : ‘in no case shall any bait or lure be furnished with more than nine hooks…’

GM2/12

Aside from this error, the term ‘more than one hook’ is confusing. In common parlance, a double or treble is called ‘a hook’, yet this byelaw presumably intends that a double hook should be intended to comprise two hooks and a treble hook, three. Simpler language would be desirable to avoid misinterpretation, inadvertent or otherwise. The hook byelaws should be rewritten to focus on the need to reduce hook damage from legal capture rather than foul-hooking.

Mortalities from spinning

Based on catch returns, most angling mortality of salmon on the Usk is linked to spinning. In 2013, the last year for which I could obtain data from the EA, about half the salmon were caught spinning and only 56% of these were returned, compared to 84% of fly-caught fish. Few salmon were reported caught on bait.

The most popular spinning lure on the Usk fisheries that I fish is, by far, the Flying C. Judging by reports on the Wye & Usk Foundation webpage on salmon catches, that is true more widely. The Technical case notes the high mortality rates associated with the Flying C though the evidence presented is mostly anecdotal. The exception is Gargan et al (2015), cited in the Technical case, who found a 55% survival rate for a small sample (11) of salmon caught on Flying Cs, compared to 98% for fly-caught salmon.

Data that I presented at EIFAAC 2015 for 245 salmon caught on the Usk at the Upper Llangybi Fishery on this lure show that severe injury rates were at least 11%, compared to 3% for 854 fly-caught fish. Note that some of the Flying Cs used were fitted with small hooks (size 8, 7mm gape), in some cases doubles, and many were barbless. Furthermore, not all severe injuries would have been recorded. Consequently, the true rate of severe injury associated with standard Flying Cs fitted with larger, barbed trebles will be greater.

The comparative survival rates reported by Lennox et al (2017) of 96% for fly- caught fish compared to 86% for ‘lure’ (spinner, spoon or wobbler) are optimistic, the latter especially for those caught on Flying C. Firstly, the Flying C is, from my data, significantly worse statistically than other spinning lures used. Secondly, in the sample of salmon in the studies used by Lennox et al, there was some selection for salmon that were not severely injured. Lastly, the salmon used in those studies were generally caught by experienced anglers and the fish handled carefully.

Consequently, survival rates to spawning associated with Flying Cs may be nearer the lower end of the range, 50-80% indicated in the Technical case (p114).

Given the need to reduce mortality associated with spinning, the restrictions on hooks on lures must be a key feature of the byelaws. The proposed byelaws will allow Flying Cs to be used with large double hooks (up to 10mm, size 4). There are no scientific studies to indicate that this will adequately reduce the rate of severe injury. From my own extensive practical experience: while the requirement for barbless will help, severe injuries are likely to remain commonplace if greater restrictions are not imposed.

GM2/13

A precautionary approach should be taken. While more research on hook size is needed (Lennox et al 2017), please follow 2.7b of the NASCO Guidelines, i.e.

A requirement for spinners or spoons to be fitted with single hooks would not be an excessive restriction.

A requirement for single hooks on Flying Cs has already been imposed by some fishery owners on the Wye (at Wyesham) and the Usk (Isca A.C.). As noted in the Technical case, anecdotal evidence from the Wye & Usk Foundation indicates that such a requirement does significantly reduce mortality. Limited experience recorded at Upper Llangybi Fishery on the Usk supports this. Few people spin now on this fishery, but those (including Garry Evans, fishing tackle dealer) that have used Flying Cs in the last three years have almost all used those developed and marketed by Garry and fitted with a single ‘semi-circle hook’, i.e.

Though the gape is quite large, <13mm, all 20 salmon caught on these were released. No injuries were recorded and in 18 cases (90%), release was described as easy. Presumably release would be even easier without a barb.

If these Flying Cs are effective and allow easy release, there is no apparent need to risk the damage associated with a double hook on this or other spinners or spoons. The gape does not need to be larger than 13mm.

GM2/14

Multiple hooks

If mandatory catch & release is required, anglers should not be allowed to fish with more than one hook, be it a single or double.

The proposed byelaws ban the use of trebles, however small, whilst allowing a fly or other lure to be fitted with up to nine hooks, i.e. up four large doubles plus a single (up to size 4, 10mm gape). The byelaw, as written, might even allow a fly or lure fitted with up to two quadruple hooks. After all, what’s the difference between a quadruple hook and two doubles fished back to back?

This is wholly inconsistent with regard to likely hook injury and ease of unhooking. It may also be ineffective or even more damaging, as anglers move from fishing trebles to fishing multi-hook lures.

Even plugs can be fished effectively with one double hook as indicated in the Wye & Usk Foundation’s catch and release guidelines, endorsed by NRW. Netting a salmon caught on a lure with multiple hooks often results in one or more hooks catching in the mesh resulting in damage to the fish, if the hook tears out, and difficulty in unhooking resulting in delay in its return.

Hook size

Permitted hooks should be smaller.

The proposed byelaws place no limit on the size of a single hook that may be used. Again this is inconsistent. As noted in a presentation by Jens Bursell at the 8th World Recreational Fisheries Conference in July this year, a large single hook will create a larger and deeper wound than a multiple hook three sizes smaller.

As indicated above, a Flying C apparently works satisfactorily with a single <13mm and this could be a maximum. It may be that a smaller single hook would be equally effective.

Since a double hook will create twice the wound of a single, for a given gape, restrictions on doubles should be greater. Permitting a double hook with two gapes of 10mm (Size 4) is not precautionary or in line with good practice. The earliest Catch & Release guidelines of the Environment Agency recommended a small hook, with small being defined as a gape of 8mm or less. The more recent Wye & Usk Foundation (WUF) guidelines recommend a ‘size 6 or smaller’ (again a gape of ~8mm, depending on the make).

Such a hook size restriction will not be a problem when larger salmon flies are needed. A tube fly can be used and fitted with a small double. This will also permit a short shank hook that is less likely to lever out. I have landed and released salmon from the Usk to ~27lbs on a barbless Loop size 10 double (gape 6.5mm) on large tube flies (up to 10cm). Indeed I do not use anything larger than a size 10 on any tube fly.

GM2/15

For plugs, such small hooks may be considered a problem if the hooks lever over but again, as indicated in the WUF guidelines, a sliding or breakaway system may be a solution. I have in the past used 7cm Rapala plugs with only one, fixed barbless hook with gape <7mm, albeit a treble, to catch salmon and not noticed a significant problem with losing fish. Indeed, I did wonder whether using only one hook might be more advantageous as it avoids leverage of one hook against the other.

(aa) Single hooks (worm fishing for sea trout)

The proposed permitted gape of 8mm is unnecessarily large and, given the risk of deep-hooking sea trout or salmon when baitfishing, even with a single worm, should be made much smaller. In fishing the Wye for barbel, a hard-fighting and similar sized fish to sea trout. I and another more experienced barbel angler, use a E-S-P, T-6, size 10 barbless hook as standard. The gape on this is 4.5mm.

GM2/16

Section 4

Q4a. Please tell us if you have any further comments that haven’t been covered by the previous questions.

Summary re: the Usk: It is unreasonable to further constrain the rod fishery whilst failing to address other factors. NRW should set objectives now, with resources, to demonstrate that effective action will have been taken on each of these issues by the time byelaws are reviewed in four years time (see comments on rod byelaw 2 re: date). I offer suggestions on what that action might include. Concerns over the state of salmon stocks were raised by the NGOs with the Welsh Government over three years ago (Letter from Afonydd Cymru, Angling Cymru, Atlantic Salmon Trust, the Angling Trust and Fish Legal, and the Salmon & Trout Conservation Trust to Welsh Government 23 July 2014). I therefore congratulate NRW on the proposed action and recognise the amount of work involved in developing these measures on legal fisheries. However, their impact on salmon stocks of the in the Usk, even with suitable revision as suggested, will be small, at least on the Usk. I estimated in 2015 that angling mortality on the Usk equated to about 8 percent of the spawning stock. There are other issues, with substantial impacts if not bigger, that must also be demonstrably addressed.

This is in line with international guidelines agreed at NASCO (2009):

Several other factors have been identified in the Technical case that are likely to affect the status of the Usk salmon stock currently, and are within NRW’s remit to address, including:  Water abstraction during the spring and summer  Illegal fishing  Bird predation, especially on smolts  Increasing agricultural pollution in the middle & lower reaches.

Even individually, the impact on the salmon stock of some of these other factors will exceed the losses associated with angling, which the byelaws aim to reduce. Together they may greatly exceed it.

Suggested actions might include:

Water abstraction: Actions from UWAG should be fully implemented as soon as possible including, as now required, a suitably protective licence for the Canal & Rivers Trust abstraction to the canal at Brecon. While all actions may not be

GM2/17

practical before 2019, voluntary interim measures should be taken to protect both smolt and adult migration, particularly for smolts in 2018, see below.

Illegal fishing: An independent expert review of illegal fishing in South East Wales and NRW’s enforcement work should be commissioned immediately and its recommendations acted on.

Since 2009, the Environment Agency and NRW have estimated the illegal catch to be 6% of the reported legal catch across England & Wales. Prior to that, since 1998, the estimate was 12%.

One reason for this reduction was the decline in the number of incidents of illegal fishing recorded, see Fig. 5 below for Wales from a UK report to NASCO: http://www.nasco.int/pdf/2007%20papers/CNL(07)26.pdf .

While it is not clear exactly what was being measured, NRW should confirm that the trend has been sustained since 2006 and that the ‘No. of cases’ is an appropriate indicator of the level of illegal fishing, rather than of reducing enforcement activity.

Currently, South East Wales has only 3 FTEs (soon to be 3.5, a welcome if minor improvement) of fully warranted fisheries officers. This is less than 20% of the 16.4 FTEs employed across Wales indicated in the Technical case.

Of particular concern is the lack of protection given to salmon during the spawning season. Salmon are extremely vulnerable at this time yet they have been afforded little or no protection in the Usk catchment in recent years, not only due to the shortage of staff but NRW’s working practices. In 2016, I understand that no patrols of spawning areas were mounted at night or weekends. General reports of salmon being taken from the redds around the Brecon area have been regularly made in recent years, for example as noted in GM2/18

the minutes of the Usk Local Fisheries Group. NRW have said that it needs more specific intelligence to take action even to increase surveillance.

While NRW can and should expect anglers and fishery owners to report incidents of illegal fishing durieng the fishing season, these people are not present in the spawning grounds, especially at night. NRW must address this gap in its intelligence. It must also ensure it has the capability to act on intelligence, not only to obtain prosecutions but as a deterrent to illegal fishing.

After concerns had been raised in 2012, I did put NRW staff in contact with a military unit that specialises in covert surveillance that was willing to help in intelligence gathering. The offer of assistance was not accepted for reasons outlined to me in an email from NRW, dated 6/12/13:

‘Many thanks for our conversation a few weeks ago with regard to assistance from the ……. I have spoken to our legal team and there are as expected some issues for Natural Resources Wales (NRW). We would have to obtain a RIPA (Regulatory of Investigatory Powers Act 200) authorisation to undertake surveillance on any river for this purpose. We would not be granted this at this moment in time due to the lack of reports of offences or intelligence received. In essence we could not justify such a course of action at this time. Also any person undertaking this work by us or on our behalf would have to be warranted to do so, as you are aware members of …… do not hold such a warrant. ….. It is however, something for consideration in the future if conditions dictate that such a course of action could be appropriate. …’

I recommend an independent review of the fisheries enforcement capability in SE Wales that could make management recommendations. This would not only help to protect salmon stocks but also to reassure legal fisheries interests, affected by these byelaws, that NRW is fulfilling its remit to address illegal fishing. As an ex-manager at Environment Agency Head Office, my understanding is that failure to do so could potentially expose it to legal action.

Bird predation

Given the high conservation value of salmon in the Usk, and the concerns about the stock’s status as a feature of the Special Area of Conservation (SAC), NRW should, with partners, identify and coordinate actions to protect the smolt run. These should focus:  on protecting flows from excessive abstraction  preventing accumulation of smolts near obstructions  coordinated scaring of predators away from such pinch points and concentrations in the lower reaches.

It is clear from recent tagging studies on smolts in other rivers that, in years of low flows, a very large proportion may be taken by taken by fish-eating birds. Indeed, in such years, such losses could be an order of magnitude greater than the impact of the rod fishery on the stock.

GM2/19

A paper that I prepared in 2013 for the Usk & Wye Abstraction Group may be helpful: Protecting the smolt migration from the impacts of abstraction on the Usk. 9pp. I am sending this with my response.

This action is not only important but urgent. The smolt run next year, 2018, needs particular protection given:  the small production from the 2015 spawning season; and  the large proportion of S1 smolts expected from the 2016 spawning season. Note that S1 smolts tend to run later and so are more susceptible to predation.

Agricultural pollution:

More effective regulation, not just information and incentives must used to cut agricultural pollution. This is a long-standing problem in Wales. NRW has recognised its inability to address it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales- 40675684 .

The Usk, from Crickhowell downsteam, seems to be increasingly subject to pollution by suspended solids, and associated pollutants, due to soil erosion from fields around the middle and lower reaches. This is neither being documented nor addressed, despite the development of cost-effective techniques across the border in Herefordshire: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk- wales-39732164 and https://davethroupea.wordpress.com/ .

Though undocumented, there is a perception that a greater proportion of the Usk catchment is now being ploughed, often on steep land, whether for maize or other problem crops such as potates or turnips. Maize is harvested in late autumn; heavy machinery compacts the ground, resulting in overland flow during heavy rain and soil erosion. One reason may be that regulation in Wales is weaker than in England which attracts across the border those contractors who use poor practice.

GM2/20

A maize field in December 2016, when rainfall was well below the long-term average.

The Olway Brook at its confluence with the Usk, June 2017.

GM2/21

Even in the spring, the bed of the main river upstream of this tributary can be coated with sediment brought down from the middle reaches following a period of heavy rain.

The bed of the river Usk ½ km upstream of the Olway Brook confluence in May.

Note that these pictures are in the lower reaches because that is where I generally fish and see the river. However, salmon do spawn in the lower reaches. Historical redd counts in the 1970 and 80s, show that in a dry year, a third of salmon spawning has been in the main river downstream of Abergavenny.

The Technical case presents a map of agricultural pollution incidents but soil pollution due to runoff from fields after heavy rain is so widespread it appears to be considered normal, so is underreported. Also it does not visibly kill fish eggs or invertebrates, just smothers them in the gravel, so even extensive pollution has been treated as minor even if attended. The incident map therefore understates the problem in the lower part of the Usk catchment, and adjacent catchments with similar soils.

This matter has been discussed with NRW SE staff but to date they have been unable to address it probably due to lack of resource. There is no mandatory water quality standard for suspended solids, so sediment pollution is not even monitored.

Conclusion: Over the past forty years much has been done by NRW, its predecessors and others, notably the Wye & Usk Foundation, to protect and improve the salmon stock on the River Usk despite the increasing problems of climate change and the marine environment. Aside from the social, cultural and economic benefits it generates through fishing, the salmon is a feature of the

GM2/22

Usk as a SAC. Effective action is required across the board, not just on the rod fishery, and in a timescale compatible with that for the proposed byelaws.

Thank you for taking the time to fill in this consultation. You can return it by email to [email protected]. Or by post to: David Mee, “Salmon and Sea Trout Byelaws”, Natural Resources Wales, Maes Newydd, Llandarcy, Neath Port Talbot, SA10 6JQ

GM2/23