Back
to ENVIRONMENT Homepage Cormorants and the
decline of
trout fishing in Loch Leven:
SNH responds to Land-Care's questions
James Irvine
Editor, www.land-care.org.uk
Filed 10 June 06
©www.land-care.org.uk
Introduction
In an earlier article this month
I wrote about the alleged decline of trout fishing on Loch Leven
(1). I described how the estate
owner - Jamie Montgomery - had given up the annual restocking of
the Loch with trout, on account of the ravenous appetite of large
numbers of cormorants that devoured over the winter months about
the same numbers of fish as he was putting in. The financial losses
were large and unsustainable.
My first line of inquiry was to ask
the RSPB:
Why cormorants carried 'amber' protection status
when they were being reported as being so numerous, not only on
Loch Leven but on other inland waters as well?
and
How did RSPB reconcile the severe damage caused
by cormorants to Scotland's no 1 country sport, fishing: an activity
that the Scottish Executive is so keen to promote?
I got the following response in the form of an
email:
Please find below a quote attributable to a
spokesman for RSPB Scotland.
"The news that Loch Leven Fisheries is to cease stocking
with brown trout because it is no longer economically viable to
do so is a blow to the local economy and the cultural heritage
of the area. However, RSPB Scotland believes that to lay the blame
for the historical declines in brown trout solely on cormorants
is an over simplification of the issue. There is a
long history and a significant amount of research has been done
to understand the reason for the declines. SNH, who manage the
Loch Leven National Nature Reserve, are best placed to advise
on the details."
Sadly, RSPB omitted to make any comment as to
the need for cormorants in Scotland to have protection at 'amber'
level, whereby they cannot be controlled without licence. Also rather
sadly, RSPB did not seem to be willing to acknowledge that cormorants
were contributing to the problem of declining trout stocks, but
preferred to ignore the cormorant problem by putting the blame on
other factors that were not their responsibility but that of SNH.
So, on Monday 5th June I sent three questions
to the appropriate Press Officer at SNH, seeking clarification.
I am grateful to SNH for their reply, received on 9th June. This
exchange is presented here in the form of question and answer in
relation to each question in turn
Preamble in my request to SNH for information
I write to you as editor of the website www.land-care.org.uk
which has a substantial national and international readership.
It is understood that surveys have shown that
large numbers of cormorants over the winter months consume vast
numbers of fish out of Loch Leven - approximately equivalent to
the number that are restocked into the loch each year at substantial
expense. Although there may be other problems that have been affecting
this internationally famous fishing loch, there would appear to
be little doubt that the damage done by hundreds of cormorants
(allegedly up to 700 over a single winter) is very real.
Cormorants we understand have an 'amber' protection
status, so that they cannot be controlled without licence. We
are informed that a licence to shoot up to 50 per year was refused
by the Scottish Executive, presumably on the advice of SNH (if
not on whose advice?).
Our understanding is that the basis for the
amber protection grading is the allegedly small number of breeding
sites. However, a quick survey of the internet indicates that
similar problems with cormorants and fish stocks are now common
place in other inland waters in the UK. When asked about this,
the RSPB failed to give any answer.
What the RSPB did say was that Loch Leven is
part of a National Nature Reserve managed by SNH. They referred
me to SNH for further information.
Question No 1 to SNH
For how long has SNH (or its predecessor) been
responsible for the
management of Loch Leven as a Nature Reserve (or any other category)?
Answer
SNH and its predecessor body, the Nature Conservancy Council,
have been
responsible for the NNR management of Loch Leven since the loch
was declared a National Nature Reserve in 1964.
The primary purpose therefore of management of the loch is as
a Nature Reserve.
The site was also notified as a Site of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI) in 1956 and designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA)
in 2000.
Details of these designations are available on the SNH web-site.
Question No 2 to SNH
How does SNH reconcile the severe damage being
done to the fish stocks at Loch Leven with the refusal by the Scottish
Executive to grant a licence for the shooting of as few as 50 cormorants
per year, when the "invasion" rate is some 700 over the
winter months? Who advised the Scottish Executive in this regard,
and on what basis?
Answer
The shooting of cormorants requires a licence
and decisions on these are made by the Scottish Executive, not
SNH. SNH advises on natural heritage issues, whilst the Executive
consider fishery, economic and other relevant issues.
SNH's advice was based on Loch Leven's status
as a Special Protection Area under the EC Habitats and Birds Directives.
These Directives give special protection to the population of
cormorants at Loch Leven. Before any plan or project is allowed
which may result in having any significant effect on this population,
a series of tests must be met. In the case of the Estates' application
to shoot cormorants in 2006, the Executive considered these tests
had not been met.
You refer to the request to shoot "as few
as 50 cormorants per year". For clarification; in giving
our advice to the Executive, we had regard to the following:
i) The degree to which shooting would cause
disturbance to other waterfowl on the site. One of our main objectives
for management of the NNR is to provide a safe haven for birds
by ensuring there are only low levels of disturbance.
ii) Cormorants form part of the internationally
important bird assemblage
and have probably been on Loch Leven for centuries.
iii) Shooting of 50 cormorants would be a significant
proportion of the birds using the site. SNH co-ordinates fortnightly/monthly
bird counts of the whole loch. Our data for the last four winters
show a mean number of cormorants of 134. This should be seen in
the context of the large amount of variation in count figures.
In a total of 33 counts, the figures for cormorants present on
any one day in the winter ranged from 4 to 386 birds.
iv) Research work undertaken in the late 1990's
demonstrated the high daily turnover of cormorants on Loch Leven.
Birds regularly travel to the Firths of Forth and Tay and any
cull would be largely futile as birds shot would quickly be replaced
by others moving in. Cormorants counted on Loch Leven are likely
to be feeding at many other places in Fife and Tayside.
In summary, we would take issue with reference
to an "invasion rate" of
some 700 cormorants in the winter months. This in no way reflects
an accurate
picture of behaviour and numbers of cormorants.
Question No 3 to SNH
How does SNH reconcile this single species conservation
approach with other objectives of the Scottish Executive: such as
encouraging economic sustainability in the countryside and encouraging
the citizens of Scotland and visiting tourists to participate in
Scotland's no 1 country sport - fishing?
Answer
We do not accept the comment that we are taking
a single species approach to this issue. We support the aim of
having a sustainable, healthy population of brown trout in Loch
Leven as an important element of the overall ecology of the loch.
From the many surveys which have been done of the brown trout
population since the 1960's, it would appear from the count figures
that the population has not declined. We do however accept that
these population counts are difficult to do and comparisons between
different methodologies can be dangerous. We are supporting the
Estate to look at juvenile recruitment to the population. A huge
amount of SNH resource, both in terms of staff time and finance,
has gone towards work on the clean-up of the loch, which has suffered
from pollution problems for some time. All stake holders on the
loch agree that water quality is recovering and the ecology of
the loch is becoming restored.
Algal blooms were a major contribution to the
decline in fishing interest on Loch Leven. Both the Estate and
ourselves have been keen to get the message out to anglers that
the loch is much cleaner that in the 80's and 90's and that it
is currently fishing well. I refer you to the estate's Press Release.
The Estate have advised us that much of the
problem the Loch Leven fishery faces is associated with changes
in market demand for this type of fishing and the difficulty of
competing with small, heavily stocked lochs
Comment
It seems remarkable that Loch Leven was allowed
to become so "polluted" when it has been managed by government
authorities as a Nature Reserve since 1964. It would suggest SNH,
and the Nature Conservancy Council before it, were not effective
in looking after the loch: i.e. they were not good managers of a
site that is important for both conservation and recreation (and
the local economy associated with that recreation).
The statement by SNH that
"The primary purpose therefore of management
of the loch is as a Nature Reserve"
is revealing.
It has major implications for other sites, including
those presently designated and those that may be designated in the
future. When it comes to the crunch, there would appear to be little
doubt that the "conservationists" led by SNH (and others
within the lobby group Environment LINK that are so well funded
by the taxpayer through SNH) would over-ride the interests of local
communities in terms of recreation, tourism or local industry -
whatever the hype in the reassuring speil that may accompany a proposal
to designate a particular area.
As with the RSPB, so with SNH. Apparently once
a creature has gained protection status there seems to be no interest
in reviewing that status, even when the numbers of the creature
indicate that it is no longer endangered in a particular geographical
area, and are considered to be causing serious harm to other interests
in that area. The impression remains that cormorants on Loch Leven
are over-protected.
This is a common problem with "conservationists"
and their organisations. Badgers and the spread of bovine tuberculosis
is a classic example (2). Bats
and the severe stress they can cause to those who live in colonised
houses is another - even although the common form of bat is indeed
common (3). The protection of
raptors has lead to the damage of grouse moors with adverse consequences
for sport, tourism and jobs - and indeed for conservation itself
(4).
With regard to the refusal of an application by
the owner of Loch Leven Fisheries for a licence to shoot up to 50
cormorants per year, the answer given by SNH is also revealing.
Here is yet further evidence of the age old device which goes,
"it wisnae' us. It was the Scottish Executive".
But SNH is an agency (quango) of the Scottish
Executive, and is not independent of it.
There seems to be an element here of gold-plating
EC directives according to what the Scottish Executive/SEERAD/SNH
fancies. Clearly, there is within the rules that apply to cormorants
the ability to control them should they become a problem, but the
authorities in Scotland choose not to use it. As far as they are
concerned it is cormorants and waders (of the avian variety) that
matter, and fishers can go hang whatever the economic consequences.
What is notable in the SNH response is that they
made no attempt to deny the capacious appetite their beloved cormorants
have for fish, and that they are alleged to eat the equivalent of
the total numbers of fish that are restocked each year, resulting
in huge financial loss to the business that runs the fishing.
SNH goes so far as to deny that the population
of brown trout has declined, which is at complete variance to what
Loch Leven Fisheries says in its recent press release (5).
Also, there is no denying that the Loch has lost its important status
in terms of the fly casting championships being moved elsewhere.
SNH's comment that 'the shooting of 50 cormorants
a year would be a significant proportion of the birds using the
site lacks conviction. But, as in other areas, perhaps SNH might
have the humility to recognise that those who spend their lives
working in the countryside may know more about the amount and nature
of the wildlife that they do. Sadly, what this amounts to is a mixture
of being disingenuous and arrogant: strong ingredients to engender
public mistrust.
Questions that arise from the SNH response include:
Just how much has it cost the taxpayer for SNH
to manage Loch Leven annually from 1964 to the present day, resulting
in the present sorry situation?
What are the pollution figures over the years,
and what has been the established causes of that alleged pollution?
What is the economic return from operating Loch
Leven predominantly as a bird sanctuary, at the expense of the
decline in income from Loch Leven with regard to Scotland's no
1 country sport - fishing?
But most importantly the message to emerge from
all this is:
Beware of assurances given by SNH - or indeed
by their bosses, the Scottish Executive - claiming that they seek
a balance between "conservation" and the interests of
the local community, including their right to be able to earn a
living from the resources in their neighbourhood. When it comes
at a challenge between the two it is clear from the example of Loch
Leven who will win and who will lose.
©www.land-care.org.uk
References
1. Irvine, James (2006). Protected
cormorants blamed for the demise of trout fishing on Loch Leven,
under the management of SNH
See ENVIRONMENT Homepage, filed 04 Jun 06, www.land-care.org.uk
Click
Here to View
2 Irvine, James (2006). Cattle
farmers in England at the end of their tether with DEFRA over TB
control
See ANIMAL HEATH - GENERAL Homepage, filed 19 Feb 06, www.land-care.org.uk
Click
Here to View
3. Irvine,
James (2003). Conservation and the misuse of science: hedgehogs,
badgers and bats
See ENVIRONMENT Homepage, filed 15 Apr 03, www.land-cre.org.uk
Click
Here to View
4. Linklater, Magnus (2004).
Claws out on a silent moorland. A heated battle rages over the birds
of prey threatening to destroy Britain's grouse
The Times 25th August 2004. Reproduced with permission
See ENVIRONMENT Homepage, filed 27 Aug 05, www.land-cre.org.uk
Click Here to View
5. Loch Leven Fisheries
(2006). Press Announcement 6th May Click
Here to View pdf
Finis
|
