|
|
Post by greenbanks on Jan 5, 2007 21:39:18 GMT
Kellie fly a point of interest. I was speaking to a beat owner who is looking to supply his fishing tenants with all fishing equipment,rods,reels,lines,flies waders etc preventing them from using any of their own equipment.This sounds a useful measure to eradicate the risk of transmission to the river and i applaud his thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by tyneandrew on Jan 5, 2007 21:42:00 GMT
In principle that would be a good measure, though i think it would distract people as they really want to be using their own kit?
|
|
|
|
Post by greenbanks on Jan 5, 2007 22:08:02 GMT
In principle that would be a good measure, though i think it would distract people as they really want to be using their own kit? I know what you are saying Tyneandrew and i truly understand anglers wanting to use their own kit,which may suit them to a T.But,and its a big but, what is the lesser of the two evils in the worse case scenario? Follow a set of rules, which is a condition of the let, virtually guaranteed to protect the river habitat and species,or run the risk and let visiting anglers use their own equipment. (Trusting to luck is a bit like the smoker lighting up and pondering if he will or wont get the big C as a result of smoking.)How could we explain to future generations if we lost a run of fish in rivers like the Dee or Spey when it was avoidable, or if we had to poison these rivers to eradicate the parasite,These rivers have water abstracted for public consumption dont they?.It is an awful scenario,but if we seriously are commited to protecting our sport and habitat we must be prepared to be really flexible with our attitudes. Can we afford to indulge ourselves at the expense of the animals we truly love and care about by insisting on using our own equipment?Asking anglers to show their passports to prove they haven't been to Norway or other Baltic countries could be more problematic i think,or asking for vets certification guaranteeing tackles cleanliness is open to abuse.I would hate to be in the position that i may be responsible for eradicating a race of fish from a river system thats been there for tens of thousands of years because i was too selfish to eliminate all chance that i could introduce a parasite to a river system.Its a scary situation and the livelihood of so many people is at risk.If there ever was a need to introduce measures, whether by government or river board,to eliminate the introduction of water borne craft or equipment in to our native rivers from Baltic states then now is the time.I pray we never see it arriving on our shores ever. |
|
|
|
Post by tyneandrew on Jan 5, 2007 22:13:09 GMT
Fair points, i just don't know how realistic the risks actually are. As you say, god forbid if it did become a reality over here.
I think the Dee is perhaps one of the most vulnerable given the influx of international anglers in the spring. Lets hope they are carrying out the preventative procedures correctly before fishing the river.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilbert on Jan 5, 2007 23:15:56 GMT
I admire individual beat owners that are prepared to spend money by buying tackle to try and stop the spread of this parasite. However I think their money would be better spent on disinfection booths, it should be mandatory that all fishing tackle is disinfected and witnessed by the ghillie on the first days fishing but then again it only takes one beat/association water not to follow these rules and then everyone else would be waisting their time.
The GS declaration form is useless, I have never been asked if I have been fishing abroad or if my equipment has been disinfected or been allowed to dry at room temp for a minimum of 3 days. I have always taken the correct precautions with my gear when returning home from abroad but doubt everyone does this.
My club has a rule that you can't fish for 1 week after fishing abroad whether you have disinfected your kit on return or not.
My biggest fear with GS is that its not a case of what should we do if it gets into a UK river but what will we do when it gets into a UK river. Its probably more likely to come from a greedy fish farmer that puts profit before everything that imports live fish from an affected area than a fisherman or canoeist.
|
|
|
|
Post by williegunn on Jan 6, 2007 0:15:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Willie The Gillie on Jan 6, 2007 11:45:47 GMT
I think the only effective riverbank solution that could be implemented is the mandatory on site discinfecting of all fisher's fishing tackle upon day one arrival. Fishfarmer's canoeists and others need to be quickly brought in to line too. God knows how though ? Imagine trying to poison the Tay ! I really think that would forever be an impossible task.
|
|
|
|
Post by ceilidh on Jan 6, 2007 14:08:05 GMT
Beatside disinfection units would certainly be a step in the right direction but by no means an adequate solution. Not all beats have a hut or suitable site for an installation, many do not have a ghillie or other person who could supervise and ensure compliance and many are accessible from a number of different points. This also applies to the various access points for canoeists. Whilst voluntary measures would certainly be welcomed by most of us, it will only need one case of infection, probably caused in ignorance by a casual visitor, to negate the value of all these precautions.
Customs officials are already overburdened looking for illegal immigrants, drugs and other prohibited substances, however, high profile notices at all ports and airports, coupled with disinfection facilities and a draconian fine plus confiscation of tackle or canoes for any failure to declare and disinfect, should be an essential first line of defence.
|
|
