Thanks Thanks:  13
Likes Likes:  106
Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415
Results 141 to 142 of 142

Thread: Time to reform

  1. #141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seeking View Post
    Crikey you go away for a couple of weeks offline and the whole darn thread morphs into yet another Wye-wars saga, replete with once banned multiple-identity posters still fighting the same futile battles you expect from two entrenched positions, then there's the odd EA lurker trying to defend the indefensible, or some Remoaner trying to do the same (WFD). Then with a little anti-netting rhetoric thrown in to muddy the already overly-silted and eutrophic waters and as ever no one asks how the smolt production's going...

    I must have overlooked this.



    It's great that the siltification issue is now being addressed, and tackled, and it seems to be a positive.

    However, I have highlighted the bit in bold because, IMHO that is total and utter cobblers.

    I am not sure if this is gleaned from reading an EA press release or what What I know from having studied WFD monitoring data for a number of rivers over long timescales, is that it is not true, and such a statement could only be based on very selective cherry picking. In fact, on the basis of available data, I would hazzard that the P-loading of many of our rivers during 2018 was the highest for ages... I know mine will be.

    It is a given that as human population increases, and the horror that is "Operator Self Monitoring" (see post#12) continues to allow the polluter to get paid, and the EU policies affecting migration and so-called "Environmental Protection" continue to degrade and modify the UK biosphere (while a few well-meaning but misguided souls bang on about a little bit of CO2 in their pursuit of lucre) our rivers will continue to burn.

    This is of course compounded by the fact that the organisation given the task of oversight is under threat from within and without, is seemingly unfit for purpose, is dealing with too much stuff on an ever decreasing budget, does not have adequate monitoring and evaluation protocols in place, does not (perhaps purposefully) do the right thing, has limited QA/QC capacity, and is reducing the amount of monitoring anyway. It's also impervious to constructive criticism.

    I would be keen for you to support your bold statement with some evidence, because I suspect you have none. And here of course we're only talking of the increasing eutrophication of surface waters, not groundwater. Now there's an issue in itself with a massive impact on rivers. And of course we know that, for nitrate at least, rather than "dropping" they're going through the roof. I suspect the BGS were sh1t-scared to monitor phosphate levels because that would have been even worse...:


    303 See Other

    Simplified here
    Scale of 'nitrate timebomb' revealed - BBC News

    But hey ho. CCR will get those pesky anglers off the banks (the pesky ones who won't accept all at sea, netting, Faroese netting, the requirement for precautionary principle CCR when there's no precautionary principle applied to the polluting water companies, and the overriding need for "climate change" bandwagon to be jumped on when the rivers are just burning because of pollution and increased anthropogenic changes). And who really cares for an ageing, dwindling number of freaks like us who stand in rivers waving sticks...
    Don't you have a graph for any of this Seeking!!

    As for the smolt production who knows - monitoring could give a negative result which just wouldn't do would it.

  2. #142
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yorkshire (were there a god it'd be god's own country) & Afrique
    Posts
    3,453

    Default

    You know it makes sense, as we discussed many many years ago, the WUF graphs indicate the river could be producing fry, but they are not necessarily getting out past the estuary in order to be able to return

    Damn, slipped into the wrong subject, back on track, English rivers...

    Smolts, smolter, as ever, it's getting them out that's important, as any river with barriers and forestry and hydro knows.

    Funnily enough I have lots of graphs showing N and P increasing dramatically in English rivers in recent years, but IME it's a bit wasted on the anti-graphist contingent on here. Now if BS can stick up a graph with multiple English rivers showing declining [PO32-] then my ears will definitely be pricked up...

    Another major issue I forgot to mention is that, actually, there are also other forms of N and P that are likewise increasing dramatically in our rivers, so it's a good job it was just "phosphate" mentioned. Plastic concentrations and microplastics (i.e. fake little fish food) are substantially more abundant than ever. And ever-increasing. All the funky synchems containing N and P are through the roof, flame retardants etc..

    No one really knows of their biocidal properties but the fake fish food aspect of microplastics should be obvious to anyone who ever fed ant eggs to a goldfish...

    More of all that than ever, especially silt sized particles:

    UK rivers heavily contaminated with microplastics, study finds
    303 See Other

    And of course coming back to farming, where do you think all the sewage and waste with microplastics went (fertiliser, spread on the fields, subsidised natch!) so all this silt is actually with ever-increasing amounts of poison. And where do all the synchem fragments of polyester and fleece material end up once they've been through the washing machine...?

    But no. The rivers have never been cleaner according to some. I remember when I walked the banks and it was rare to see a fertiliser bag. Now, they are unbelievably polluted.

    I really can't see what the fuss is with our wonderful "Environmental Protection" agency

    Trebles all round (but not for those pesky anglers, natch)
    "...hooking mortality is higher than you'd expect: further evidence that as a numbers game, catch-and-release fishing isn't always as straightforward as it seems"
    John Gierach


    Fed up of debating C&R - see Hidden Content

    Unless otherwise stated, data used in any graph/figure/table are Crown copyright, used with the permission of MSS and/or EA and/or ICES. MSS / EA / ICES are not responsible for interpretation of these data by third parties

Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •