1. Previous Regulations
Regulations were published (but never implemented) in July 2013, in which trout were listed as Category 1b species (i.e. must be controlled). These Regulations were in line with the enabling provisions in the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) at that point in time.
Subsequently the Act was amended and more flexible exemption, categorisation and prohibition provisions were inserted. These amendments came into effect on 23 July 2013.
The new provisions in the Act enabled the Department to propose a more nuanced approach, that allows for the management of invasives in a manner that provides for the flexibility required for certain species, including among fresh-water fish. It also allows the Department, where appropriate, to address the complexities involved in balancing the threat to biodiversity and the management of this threat with economic growth opportunities associated with certain listed invasive species.
In terms of the amended Act, these new Regulations were published for public comment in February 2014, in which the two trout species were listed as shown in the Table above. The amendments to the Act furthermore enabled the department to address the transition from the current systems, where activities are regulated in terms of provincial legislation to the new system, where activities will be regulated in terms of national legislation. In this regard, existing Permits will remain valid for a period of two years.
The July 2013 Regulations are to be replaced by these new 2014 Regulations.
2. “Trout are not invasive”
A legal argument has been put forward by the anti-regulation lobby that trout should not be listed, because “a species is only invasive if it either causes economic harm or causes harm to human health”. In fact, the law says that a species is invasive if its “establishment and spread outside of its natural distribution range (a) threaten ecosystems, habitats or other species or have demonstrable potential to threaten ecosystems, habitats or other species; and (b) may result in economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” It is quite obvious that, if the spread of a species may result in environmental harm, then they are invasive. (How can a “Biodiversity Act” not protect biodiversity?)
To take this to its logical conclusion, indigenous species could then be decimated or driven to extinction, and the law should not intervene, unless human well-being is affected. The Department does not believe that the vast majority of fly-fishers would support that position. (In any event, “human health” can also be “harmed” � think of the psychological sense of loss through rhino poaching.)
The Department sees no merit in the legal argument presented by the anti-regulation lobby. There must nevertheless be evidence that the trout species are invasive in an ecological sense. Trout have self-sustaining populations in many (cool) waters, and they have to eat to stay alive. What then are they eating, and might this have an impact on biodiversity? The only formal scientific studies that have been done in South Africa all say that the trout are out-competing indigenous species (including eating indigenous fish, amphibians and invertebrates) in suitable waters.
No-one has come forward with one scientific study in South Africa that has shown otherwise. The Department’s science-based risk assessment, co-ordinated by the South African National Biodiversity Institute, confirms that the trout should be classified as invasive in our country, and will be available to all interested and affected parties.
The international literature on the invasiveness of trout is absolutely overwhelming in finding that brown trout and rainbow trout are very invasive species outside of their natural distribution ranges. (Both species are listed amongst the world 100 worst invasive alien species by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).) Those who are in any doubt should google the words “trout” and “invasive”. It provides over 1.5 million sources.
FOSAF has said, commendably, that they are completely opposed to trout being introduced into waters in which they do not occur. The Department has questioned why they have this strongly held position, if trout are not invasive. If trout have the many economic benefits that are being extolled, and they are not invasive, why would the anti-regulation lobby then not argue that trout should be put in every water body where they can survive?
The answer, as most fly-fishers know, is that trout are invasive in suitable waters, and introducing them into catchment systems in which they do not occur can result in environmental harm. The Department concurs, and that is why it has such severe penalties that can be imposed on anyone caught introducing any fish species into a water body in which it does not occur (without a Permit).
A further irony in the position of the anti-regulation lobby is that the trout industries would doubtless want the Department to enforce its Regulations on anyone caught introducing, say, small-mouth bass (which eat trout) into “trout waters”. The absurd interpretation of the definition of “invasive” by the anti-regulation lobby would mean that the Department could not prevent an invasion of small-mouth bass either.
Bookmarks