“Fishing Breaks recent newsletter calls into question Salmon &  Trout Conservation UK’s (S&TC) Riverfly Census report despite it  being based on independent scientific evidence.
 I am involved  with the work of S&TC. I have also undertaken a considerable amount  of guiding over the past 12 years on the chalkstreams although my  angling roots go back to the 1950’s. 
 One thing I feel I can’t be  critised for is not having a lack of passion for the aquatic  environment and in particular the health below the surface as opposed to  what is above it, which is so often the focus of media attention. 
  The Government and its Agencies continue to brain wash the public with  how “clean” our rivers are and whilst it is true (and cause for  celebration) that certain rivers e.g. Trent, Mersey, Thames, Tyne etc  have been transformed from the ravages of industry, I am sure many will  agree we now face very different, and often invisible, challenges. I  believe “clean” is never a word that should be used in the context of a  river; in its extreme “clean” can mean sterile and of course such an  environment will not support life. Instead we need to talk about the  ecological status and this leads to a much different story. By the  Government’s own admission 83% of rivers in England fail the test of  good ecological status. This is not S&TC scare mongering or  inventing but rather telling it how it is.
 S&TC does not act on a whim but bases its campaigns on scientific evidence.
  It is now well over a decade since Messrs Hayes and Frake published the  Millennium Chalkstream Fly Survey raising concerns about a decline in  fly life populations. True memories can play tricks, but S&TC is  using independently verified scientific data and where possible  comparing it with EA’s historic records and other research papers.
  The Riverfly Census came about, not by wanting something to do, but  from approaches by riparian interests, members, clubs, anglers etc who  had become disillusioned, frustrated and concerned at the ecological  health of their particular bit of water.
 Fishing Breaks’  newsletter makes reference to enlisting support but the response to  S&TC’s Chalkstream and Riverfly Census projects have been  unprecedented. Why? One can only assume it is because there is a cry for  action.
 I find it confusing when the newsletter refers to “…..  few complain about the lack of fly life. Lack of rising fish yes, but  lack of flies no.” May be that is because there has been a move away  from imitating a natural life cycle but instead opting for patterns and  techniques more likely to be found in use on reservoirs.
 For far  too long I have attended meeting after meeting with promises of action  but little follows. That said, organisations such as Wild Trout Trust,  Rivers Trusts, (until December last year I was treasurer of the local  one) Wildlife Trusts etc have done (and continue to do) a fantastic job  in restoration work but the success of such projects depends very much  on the quality and quantity of water that flows through the reach. This  is where S&TC compliments such work since it addresses the bigger  picture and does so, unlike many other conservation organisations,  without any Government (or its agencies’) funding.
 Look what  S&TC did on the upper Itchen in 2014. After years of discussions on  the negative impact of phosphates (P) on the river there was a distinct  lack of action. S&TC decided enough was enough and bought, at  considerable expense, its own water sampling equipment, which took daily  samples that were independently analysed by Southampton University. The  results revealed high levels of P and, in particular, spikes that had  previously gone undetected by the EA – they sample only once a month.  That data was then used to influence the cress industry and the EA to  implement a maximum target discharge level. Introduced in January this  year S&TC is now monitoring compliance. Would this have happened  without S&TC intervention with scientific evidence? I doubt it.  Should S&TC have to do its own independent monitoring? No, but  someone has to police it.
 One can argue monitoring is the  responsibility of the EA and of course it is, but successive cuts backs  has left it unable to effectively carry out its duties. Unacceptable? Of  course it is.
 This is on the upper Itchen last May – it is an  image of a chemcatcher S&TC uses to detect chemicals in the river.  When it was installed it was encased in a shiny metal container but this  growth occurred in just two weeks! If this does not suggest immediate  awareness and attention I do not know what does.
 Turning to the  specific question of fly life I am sure we can’t over stress its  importance. Part of the food chain, it is not only food for fish but  also birds and certain mammals. Unlike the coarse angler who induces  fish to feed by introducing free offerings, fly fisherman rely on nature  to do this for us. It is therefore vital there is an abundance of  invertebrates not only to sustain the fish (and other life forms) but  also to add to the fisherman’s experience and enjoyment. 
  Individual species of invertebrates vary in their resilience to certain  stresses and in particular the BWO and Iron Blue populations, once  common and of great interest to anglers, have reduced considerably as a  result of siltation. Do we turn a blind eye? I have underwater video  from a number of locations which show the problems. I believe honesty is  required to counter the rhetoric coming out of Government, otherwise  how are we going to get the message home, particularly when television  is also misleading the public with programmes such a Springwatch and  Countryfile focusing on chocolate box images.
 I know S&TC  would very much like to be aware of sites on the Test and Itchen where  there are abundant populations of BWO and Iron Blue. If anyone is aware  of any please let me know so they can be promoted to highlight best  practice.
 30th May 2016″