|
A surprising contribution from FishyChris which is a mixture of moral philosophy and apparent
flippancy; unlike many of his previous posts. Unlike him I have yet to watch the video but am aware of the issues.
Legislative enforcement always costs money. It is the price we pay for a decent society. Without it
we have the wildwest and whilst I am not a proponent of an enforcer on every corner it would be re-assuring to us all to know that there is at least evidence of consequence where people and
organisations deliberately circumvent the law or pursue practices that have detrimental social
effects . An agreed starting point must be that there is an accurate and maintained database of
intensive farm units so we know the scale of the problem and engage with its effects rather than
turning our backs on it.
Every action has a consequence and a responsible society monitors the consequences and deals with the outcomes sustainably We have chosen the third way of ignoring them which is why we have the problem. Of course you cannot stop animals refuelling and expelling waste. Humans do the same but we don’t generally take the cheapest disposal option, we contain it and process it and (apart from the actions of rogue water companies) generally deal with the consequences responsibly. We could do the same for animals but the cheaper option is followed in the name of cheap food.
You quote life expectancy figures now and their increase from your youth. Over the same period
food costs as a proportion of the family budget have more than halved, in the main because of more intensive practices the ‘costs’ of which are measured only at the supermarket till, not in in real terms. The choice you imply of cheap food or a healthy river is not a real choice, as the
consequence of unhealthy rivers is a breakdown in the ecosystem which will inevitably lead to food shortages or no food at all.
As to whether we are over populated or not is irrelevant. Malthus thought that if the UK population
went to over 4 million there would be widespread famine. The last 240 years have suggested he was wrong and we’re still here at 65 million. It is where we are and we have to deal with it and to
continue to kick the can down the road is not sustainable. Like all of us I am only ‘passing through’but for our children and their children it would be reasonable to hope that we left something worthwhile.
By the way we agree about Chavs and Nandos!
Posted on July 28, 2021 at 11:03 AM
|
|
FishyChris, no you are not wrong in your approach; it is the only sustainable one, even if at times any reasonable person would question its wisdom.
The fact is that some people (irrespective of race, nationality, sex etc) are more likely to disregard the law and social norms than others. We see it each day on the roads, (speeding, undertaking, etc) in shops (shoplifting), and in hundreds of other settings. Where these actions are ‘accepted’ without consequence (through apprehending, prosecution, public criticism etc) they will proliferate and mutate to apparently ‘accepted’ and ‘socially acceptable’.
Most (but not all) UK anglers have been socialised to our norms and laws since childhood and for the most part accept them. The high acceptance rates for following coronavirus restrictions confirms that as a nation we are generally compliant. The difference between established UK residents and EU migrants is that the latter group are generally by definition as a group more assertive and adventurous than similar groups of established UK residents (as they came from their countries to settle, live and work in the UK) and within the group some can and do exhibit a greater propensity to ‘push the envelope’ and 'find a way'. Their formative years were shaped by other norms with regard to products of catches. This is to understand some of the influences which shape actions. It can never excuse them.
This is not a prelude to a soft lefty response. The law is the law for all, and when in Rome we should all accept that we do as the Romans do. If we don’t we should expect and deserve the consequences which should follow. Some (not all) EU nationals fishing here chose to ignore our laws. They should face our opprobrium and the consequences of their actions as should anyone (regardless of origin) who does the same. To condemn them because they hail from Poland, Romania, Hungary or wherever is immaterial, to condemn them as individuals who refuse to accept the law is completely appropriate. Some will and do play the ignorance card. This is a predictable default response of anyone apprehended when law breaking (‘I’ve only had a pint officer’, ‘There was no speed limit sign’ ‘I didn’t know I needed a TV licence to watch Sky’ etc ad infinitum).
The sequential ‘4 Es’ of legal enforcers (Engage, Explain, Educate, Enforce) are set out for a purpose and are good practice. The alternative is lazy thinking of generalist labels and condemning all who fit such labels to a blanket response which condemns all, irrespective of individual behaviour and creates martyrs and is guaranteed to increase friction with predictable consequences. We are social animals and need to co-exist, preferably peacefully. To do so we need to ensure all know the rules and where these are broken the perpetrators face the consequences.
Posted on July 26, 2021 at 9:02 AM
|
|
To better understand the scope and nature of what is happening to all our rivers and the reasons
why check out the attached 2 links:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/21/britains-river... farm-waste
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/13/water-companie...
For those without the time to read these, in essence the problem is that of regulatory failure by the EA starved of resource through years of cuts and privately owned water companies who to protect shareholder value (the main motivational difference between private and public companies) and have taken the view that it costs less to pay whatever fines the weakened regulatory system hands out than make the necessary investments to prevent environmentally damaging sewage discharges. The water companies are only one side of the problem the other is farming practices.
We’ve allowed numerous industrial farming units to proliferate many without the need for
environmental permits (because the planning regulations have ridiculously high thresholds
meaning that many need not apply) which permit ‘safe’ [my quotation marks throughout] effluent discharge and run off on land, where when it rains, the water drains into the river. No one knows how many there are or the ‘safe’ limits in any catchment. The Wye is particularly badly affected – algal blooms in summer bear testimony to this and have replaced the clear water and waving ranunculus (water crowsfoot) which oxygenated the water and provided cover for fish and invertebrates, with a grey-green opaque river.
Local Authorities in this catchment (Hereford, Powys) responsible for granting permits do not even know how many such units there are nor the stock volumes (estimated at 20m by citizen scientific research) whose effluent finds its way into river, after being spread onto the fields (the cheapest disposal ‘solution’).
When you hear politicians talk about ‘getting rid of red tape’ and making a bonfire of unnecessary
regulations to free up industry in the name of economic growth and the interests of the public just
pause to consider what it means. If you couple this with swingeing public expenditure cuts
‘because low taxation is a good thing’ it must mean that the regulatory bodies reduce their work to
the bare minimum and concentrate on firefighting rather than problem solving. It is a green flag to
those whose main motivation is not social benefit. If you ponder these thoughts when river fishing
the answer will be in front of your face.
Posted on July 25, 2021 at 9:25 AM
|
|
Oh Fishychris THANK YOU, for your clear description of the problem. Yes we have a problem with taking of coarse fish and related illegal angling activity and yes some of it comes from those who were born in the EU and bring with them the customs and acceptable norms from their original countries. It is not however confined to this group and by no means includes them all. Many as you say have modified their norms to accept and even promote UK practice.
My wife's cousin is German, (her father's brother married a German girl after the war) and 30 years ago we stayed with her and visited my wife's aunt after a day I'd spent fishing on Steinhuder Mere. Her aunt (a chef by training) was incandescent with me on learning that I'd caught eels and RETURNED them!
For us in the UK with our laws, values and customs we return coarse fish. In Germany to visit a restaurant you find, eels, perch pike and zander on the menu. Its true in much of Europe. My wife's uncle worked as a sparks in Germany and his customers would offer him carp at Christmas as a Christmas Box. These values are hardwired around Europe and we need to recognise that the more recent (now settled) arrivals in the UK have to unlearn these values, customs and practice that has been part of them since their youth. It is a real problem but so very rare to hear such an accurate, measured response. Thank you.
Posted on July 22, 2021 at 12:11 AM
|
|
Anyone who knows the work of George Monbiot knows that he is a well informed and active environmental campaigner.
I've watched the trailer and read an article about the 14.7.21 broadcast. I will watch the whole broadcast shortly, but I am aware of what it contains which sadly should surprise no-one who knows rivers and has followed the government's deregulation agenda and witnessed the effects of 11 years of public spending cuts.
The core facts are these:
1. The EA is the body responsible for environmental law enforcement. It is unwieldy, poorly managed has too many responsibilities and is woefully underfunded, which is not to say that there are not pockets of exemplary practice among its workforce.
2. GIA (grant in aid) funding of the EA has been reduced by 60-65% over the past 11 years and forecast to fall further. Such cuts are never without consequence.
3. Polluters (water companies, farms, industry etc) can only be controlled by the law enforced by (EA) inspection, evidence gathering and prosecution. Where the resource is inadequate illegal activity must inevitably proliferate.
4. Pre 2010 the inspection regime meant that at risk locations/organisations might be seen once in 3-4 years, this is now much longer.
5. As the recent prosecution of Southern Water shows, private ownership concentrates resources on shareholder value, meaning that corporate pressure is to delay and reduce costly investment
and plant upgrades becomes low priority. This case also shows that such companies are prepared to present their own (often fictional) figures, obstruct independent investigation and self reporting has replaced EA inspection for water companies. Its like asking you and me to pay the tax we claim we owe through self reporting with no follow up or independent or supporting evidence. It is based on the view that industry can be trusted to act in the public rather than their own interest. I ask you in all seriousness do you believe this?
6. All EA investigations are subject to cost/benefit analysis (ie is the cost the EA of investigating/bringing a prosecution worth the perceived benefits - to the EA as well as society). 7.The consequence of these measures is obvious to all of us who choose to look at and understand what is happening.
8. The Chief Exec of EA (James Bevan) recently told the Parliamentary Select Committee that 'we get the environment we are prepared to pay for'. Whilst we continue to inhabit the Neverland of minimal taxation we should not be surprised by consequences such as this. They are both inevitable and entirely predictable.
Do we want a society and country which upholds decent standards and is worth passing down to future generations because if we do we cannot escape the costs. If we'd rather not think beyond the present and carry on living in Neverland there is little hope for our or our children's futures.
Posted on July 21, 2021 at 8:22 AM
|
