NEMBA regulations documents

[Andre]

Its been going on for years, and almost every fly fishing club, competition structure, and concerned interest group have been involved over many years. Its been thrashed to death. I think everyone is so bored with it after so many years, that almost everything that could be discussed , has already been discussed.

[JadeDsantos]

Forgive me if I am wrong here, I havent been involved for years, only since this classification act through NEMBA hit the papers, but surely a good strategy for NEMBA would be to fatigue everyone out of giving a hoot?

The discussion fuels the fire of resistance, as soon as it stops they can do what they want, can they not? All it would take is someone like FOSAF or TROUTSA to call it quits and who fights then?

[Ko7Ad]

Just received some more documentation from the DEA. Here is a part that I found interesting as it actually supports FOSAF and TroutSA's take on the NEMBA regulations, DEA however are trying to use the same document to support their case that Trout are safe.

"when the above phrase is read with the definition of “control” in the Act, namely; “to combat or eradicate an alien or invasive species…” [again my emphasis], it is altogether clear that eradication is not contemplated in every case. In fact the definition of “control” goes on to acknowledge in the next sub-section (b) that “where such eradication is not possible” the aim is, “to prevent, as far as may be practicable, the recurrence, re-establishment, re-growth, multiplication, propagation, regeneration or spreading of an alien or invasive species.” In so-doing the Department clearly acknowledges that the “eradication” of many of the over 500 listed invasive species is not possible and this includes trout. Eradication of trout cannot be done, and a sober reading of the draft regulations makes it clear that the Department has no intention of doing so." - Advocate Jan Glazewski, Professor in and Director of the Institute of Marine and Environmental Law at the University of Cape Town; author of “Environmental Law in South Africa” LexisNexis 2013.

[JadeDsantos]

Thanks very much for this. It was my take on the document, but I am not really literate in these kinds of cases. I just hope it is the case that trout are found to be not worth eradicating because of all the reasons you listed above.

Thanks very much for sharing your opinion. Surely this is then a reason to celebrate? :biggrin:

[BuzzLiteBeer]

Just received some more documentation from the DEA. Here is a part that I found interesting as it actually supports FOSAF and TroutSA's take on the NEMBA regulations, DEA however are trying to use the same document to support their case that Trout are safe.

"when the above phrase is read with the definition of “control” in the Act, namely; “to combat or eradicate an alien or invasive species…” [again my emphasis], it is altogether clear that eradication is not contemplated in every case. In fact the definition of “control” goes on to acknowledge in the next sub-section (b) that “where such eradication is not possible” the aim is, “to prevent, as far as may be practicable, the recurrence, re-establishment, re-growth, multiplication, propagation, regeneration or spreading of an alien or invasive species.” In so-doing the Department clearly acknowledges that the “eradication” of many of the over 500 listed invasive species is not possible and this includes trout. Eradication of trout cannot be done, and a sober reading of the draft regulations makes it clear that the Department has no intention of doing so." - Advocate Jan Glazewski, Professor in and Director of the Institute of Marine and Environmental Law at the University of Cape Town; author of “Environmental Law in South Africa” LexisNexis 2013.

... and if you read further.....

"The trout industry should support the Department of Environment Affairs’ endeavours to maintain its
biodiversity treasure trove, and not to undermine it. And doing so will clearly have no impact on trout
aquaculture or fly-fishing."

In the Western Cape all the publicly accessible (read CPS waters) are located in Provincial Nature reserves. CN wants trout killed in these waters, especially the Krom which is a tributary of the Smalblaar. The excuse given is the protection of the Giant Redfin which has recently been "discovered" and instantly classified as critically endangered without any surveys being done. The Krom is a spawning area for trout in the Smalblaar. So, to say that there will be no impact on fly-fishing is laughable.

[Andre]

No one has given up FOSAF were there since the beginning about 15 years ago when it was first mooted, and and have been very active ever since, and so have many other organisations. Its thanks to their efforts and those of many others, (including the CPS, and MC, the CPS Chairman at the time, and various CPS committee members who I can name ) that were instrumental in fighting the cause, and played a very important role in preserving a lot of what we have today, including the CPS trout exclusion zones. Don't worry Jade, there have been many people, some of whom you might even know on this forum, that have been lobbying for many years.

Forgive me if I am wrong here, I havent been involved for years, only since this classification act through NEMBA hit the papers, but surely a good strategy for NEMBA would be to fatigue everyone out of giving a hoot?

The discussion fuels the fire of resistance, as soon as it stops they can do what they want, can they not? All it would take is someone like FOSAF or TROUTSA to call it quits and who fights then?

[JadeDsantos]

No one has given up FOSAF were there since the beginning about 15 years ago when it was first mooted, and and have been very active ever since, and so have many other organisations. Its thanks to their efforts and those of many others, (including the CPS, and MC, the CPS Chairman at the time, and various CPS committee members who I can name ) that were instrumental in fighting the cause, and played a very important role in preserving a lot of what we have today, including the CPS trout exclusion zones. Don't worry Jade, there have been many people, some of whom you might even know on this forum, that have been lobbying for many years.

Thanks Andre, I suppose this is then my moment of appreciation to all those people, and if they are on the forum, I personally give you my thanks for doing everything you have. To quote Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

[Ko7Ad]

So, to say that there will be no impact on fly-fishing is laughable.

This is actually the message I wanted to get across. If the highlighted comment is read carefully it seems that where an invasive species (read Trout) is located the regulation indicates that restocking or natural propagation should be prevented, this reads to me at least that if Rotenone (just an example) is not used to eradicate the Trout that authorities will go about implementation of other measures to get the same end results.

“where such eradication is not possible” the aim is, “to prevent, as far as may be practicable, the recurrence, re-establishment, re-growth, multiplication, propagation, regeneration or spreading of an alien or invasive species.”

[Ko7Ad]

Thanks Andre, I suppose this is then my moment of appreciation to all those people, and if they are on the forum, I personally give you my thanks for doing everything you have. To quote Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

I also want to take the opportunity to thank everyone involved in the fight to oppose these regulations!

[Andre]

Yes it is the intention, but if you look at the Cape in particular, there is no budget for alien fish removal. The last three annual reports haven't said anything... it seems that all the money is being chewed up by removing alien trees. I doubt that in our lifetime, we are ever going to see trout disappear. There are a few rivers that might be poisoned over time, like the upper Berg was done about 7 or 8 years ago, but the trout went back there very quickly. Im not convinced that there is actually ever going to be serious action in the Western Cape. They just don't have the resources.

This is actually the message I wanted to get across. If the highlighted comment is read carefully it seems that where an invasive species (read Trout) is located the regulation indicates that restocking or natural propagation should be prevented, this reads to me at least that if Rotenone (just an example) is not used to eradicate the Trout that authorities will go about implementation of other measures to get the same end results.

“where such eradication is not possible” the aim is, “to prevent, as far as may be practicable, the recurrence, re-establishment, re-growth, multiplication, propagation, regeneration or spreading of an alien or invasive species.”