The modern battle on the riverbank - Fisheries predation and the law

Water Law

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 26-30

  Harrop, Stuart R ^a,b  

^a Dept of Wildlife Management Law ^*  (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KENT   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0001899606     PISSN: 09599754     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. To a lesser extent Pc sinensis is present in the south of England. However, this bird, whilst the centre of controversy elsewhere in Europe, has not given rise to the current interest in cormorants in this country.
2. See, generally, Marquiss and Carss, Avian Piscivores: Basis for Policy (Institute of Terrestrial Ecology) and their summary document Fish-Eating Birds: Assessing their Impact on Freshwater Fisheries.
3. See, generally, Marquiss and Carss, Avian Piscivores: Basis for Policy (Institute of Terrestrial Ecology) and their summary document Fish-Eating Birds: Assessing their Impact on Freshwater Fisheries.
4. The S & TA News, issued by the Salmon & Trout Association, ran a headline "EU anglers unite against cormorants" in its November 1996 issue.
5. The MAFF, DoE and the then NRA issued various tender documents concerned with this issue under the general code of CTE9511 in 1995.
6. The European Parliament adopted, on 15 February 1996, a Resolution on the Cormorant problem in European Fisheries, which considers that the Commission should commence scientific projects aimed at the cormorant problem, albeit relating to Pc sinensis (which has a protected status under Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds). Further, the Resolution claims that the derogations possible under Art. 9 of the Directive would not "answer the need to manage the cormorant species at Europe-wide level".
7. See Avian Piscivores: (n. 3 above) where it is acknowledged that "There is no hard experimental evidence that fish-eating birds [including the cormorant], nor that licensed killing effectively prevents damage ... The lack of such evidence does not necessarily mean that fish-eating birds [including the cormorant] do not have an effect, merely that to date the appropriate experiments have not been carried out".
8. See Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report Volume 2 Action Plans (HMSO, 1995), p. 82 where "predation by mink" is one of the four factors stipulated as currently causing loss or decline of the water vole (Arvicola terrestris). The report also recommends control of mink in water vole ranges, but also acknowledges the need for further research "to quantify the effects of mink predation on water voles, and [to] assess the logistics and efficacy of mink control".
9. See Birks, "Mink" Mammal Society Series, p. 19, who states that "the answer is a qualified NO". Birks does not deal in depth with the fish issue; however, he acknowledges that in river and lake habitats fish consist of at least one-third of the diet of mink.
10. This exception does not apply to those birds given special protection through inclusion in Sched. 1 of the Act.
11. Words in italics added by SI 1995/2825.
12. Ibid.
13. (OJ L103, 25 April 1979).
14. See Avian Piscivores (n. 3 above).
15. Birks, in his article "Mink" (n.9 above) summarises control methods used for mink. He states that "thousands of mink are trapped and shot in Britain each year"; however, he believes that even intensive trapping is unlikely to eradicate the species. With regard to hunting, he estimates that most hunts kill 40-50 mink per season (a total of 700-800 nation-wide annually).
16. According to Birks in "Mink" (ibid.) at p. 19 "Mink live side by side with otters on many waterways in Britain...".
17. For those who prefer fireside "science": Henry Williamson's Tarka the Otter describes many of these resting places.
18. In any event the introduction may also, in appropriate circumstances, give rise to an abandonment offence under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 (as amended by the Abandonment of Animals Act 1960).
19. Birks, "Mink" (n. 9 above).
20. Under s. 8 of the Pests Act 1954 it is an offence to use an unapproved spring trap.
21. Under s. 11(3) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and s. 10 of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 respectively.
22. Rmuley v Murphy [1964] 1 All ER.
23. For a concise and brave summary of the law on this subject, see Parkes and Thornley, Fair Game: The Law of Country Sports and the Protection of Wildlife, new revised edition (Pelham Books), at p. 250.
24. Section 5(1) imposes a fine not exceeding level 5 (maximum £5,000) or up to six months' imprisonment, and where multiple animals are involved the maximum fines may accumulate as if each animal constituted a separate offence.
25. But see the letter from John Bryant, Head of Press and Research, League Against Cruel Sports in The Veterinary Record, 30 March 1996, where he argues that the word "lawful" would require that the person seeking to take advantage of the defence should not be trespassing, i.e. simply operating on land without permission.
26. See Radford, "Protecting Wild Mammals" (1996) NLJ.
27. Although the exception in s.2(d) excludes an act done by a dog; thus, if the final kill is neither swift nor humane but is carried out by a dog, then, presumably, the accused would claim the safe harbour of this exception.