Update on shellfish layings in the Walton Backwaters

nortada said:
Taking the broader view there is plenty of space in the Backwaters to accommodate both the oysters and anchoring.
Click to expand...
Well there is at the moment - but my concerns are twofold.

Firstly there's evidence these fishermen are operating under the radar as CEFAS have confirmed earlier in the thread that "there are no licensed or recognised oyster beds in Walton Backwaters. This includes the much disputed Kirby Creek." and the fact that oysters are being laid despite this suggests not only a rather cavalier attitude towards the relevant authority but also begs the question who, if anybody is subsequently taking responsibility for ensuring such unlicensed oysters are fit to eat?

Secondly if the harvest - whether officially sanctioned or not - is a success then how much more of the Backwaters will be commandeered by oyster fishermen with the subsequent loss of anchoring choices in the future? Who can say that Kirby Creek, or any other anchorage in the Backwaters for that matter won't once again be taken over and defended with the same confrontational attitude as it has in the past?

I see no benefit whatsoever to the local sailing community in any of this.
 
Sailing steve said:
Well there is at the moment - but my concerns are twofold.

Firstly there's evidence these fishermen are operating under the radar as CEFAS have confirmed earlier in the thread that "there are no licensed or recognised oyster beds in Walton Backwaters. This includes the much disputed Kirby Creek." and the fact that oysters are being laid despite this suggests not only a rather cavalier attitude towards the relevant authority but also begs the question who, if anybody is subsequently taking responsibility for ensuring such unlicensed oysters are fit to eat?

Secondly if the harvest - whether officially sanctioned or not - is a success then how much more of the Backwaters will be commandeered by oyster fishermen with the subsequent loss of anchoring choices in the future? Who can say that Kirby Creek, or any other anchorage in the Backwaters for that matter won't once again be taken over and defended with the same confrontational attitude as it has in the past?

I see no benefit whatsoever to the local sailing community in any of this.
Click to expand...
https://www.cefas.co.uk/media/4n0j4...nitary-survey-report-2011-dj-table-issues.pdf
pages 49-50
 
RivalRedwing said:
thanks, very informative :)
Click to expand...

It is - up to a point, and that point is the report doesn't make actually make any recommendations as to the suitability or otherwise of any Backwaters locations for maturing and harvesting oysters, it simply reports the numbers regarding levels of fecal contamination found there.

That suggests to me the actual decision as to the suitability of the Backwaters for oyster production lies with other hands and the main suspect here looks like it's Tendring council as they are the body who have overall responsibility for ensuring food standards and hygiene regulations in the district are adhered to, and they aren't gonna be shouldering that responsibility without a neatly bound and doubtless eye wateringly expensive arse-covering report on their desks.

Wouldn't it be ironic if local yachtsmen and women have funded that report via their Council Tax payments for the benefit of oyster fishermen from outside the Tendring district which subsequently causes them a disadvantage when a choice of Backwater anchorages is restricted or denied to them?

I'm not from the Tendring area myself so who paid for the report is (hopefully) somebody else's problem - but I do have an interest in being able to anchor where I please and as I've already mentioned there's no benefit whatsoever to the sailing community in facilitating the resumption and or expansion of oyster harvesting in the Backwaters.
 
In the recommendations/conclusion doesn't it say there should be three further monitoring (RMP) points - I wonder if this will happen & who will pay.

It also says the shellfishery was declassified 2016 - 2023 but was reclassified in 2023. Isn't that enough/all that's needed to harvest the oysters? Who says, or where does it say, further scientific investigations are needed before people can eat the oysters from there? (I may of missed in the report, if so, apologies). I do suspect Sailing Steve is correct, a new investigation/sampling is needed of the actual oysters produced, but who has the legal powers to confirm this? It's been the opinion locally the cost of scientific investigations would be so much it would deter new oyster layings, but whats to stop the oyster fisherman claiming this is the report which was needed?

I am a local council tax payer (live 1.25 miles from the marina) but am supportive of the fisherman - I feel good to see younger people being enterprising & very hard working, so do hope it all goes OK for him.
 
#28
"Wouldn't it be ironic if local yachtsmen and women have funded that report via their Council Tax payments for the benefit of oyster fishermen from outside the Tendring district which subsequently causes them a disadvantage when a choice of Backwater anchorages is restricted or denied to them?"
The first entry in the consultants report states the Client was the Food Standards Agency (FSA).
In several reports relating to Hamford Water (RAMSAR SSSI etc.) a recurring threat to the natural environment is identified as boating activity and associated effluent.
As the Backwater receives far more visiting yachts in it's anchorages and moorings than locals (who have access to onshore facilities), I am also in favour of having an active fishery, which by default, helps protect the quieter creeks from disturbance, are not historic yacht anchorages and not necessarily owned by the Crown.
 
WFA said:
I am also in favour of having an active fishery, which by default, helps protect the quieter creeks from disturbance, are not historic yacht anchorages and not necessarily owned by the Crown.
Click to expand...

I definitely won't be in favour of an active fishery if it leads to prohibitions to anchoring in quieter creeks, especially if history repeats itself and those quieter creeks are defended in the same arrogant and hostile manner as they have been before.
 
Can't see the problem of oyster beds and anchoring in the same piece of creek, if beds are along the side of the creek in the traditional way in a designated zone within the creek, and maybe buoyed to show cage location, like the many fish nets in the main river - or withied - There are old oyster beds along the full length of the creek where my mooring is, Oysters are laid there from time to time or grow themselves wild - and might be more in the future - and in Pyefleet both moorings and oysters managed by the Oyster Fishery - can't imagine the moorings in either being removed for the oysters.

Probably more of an issue with the big seagulls, who seem to enjoy an oyster or two on my deck
 
Last edited:
Egret said:
Can't see the problem of oyster beds and anchoring in the same piece of creek, if beds are along the side of the creek in the traditional way in a designated zone within the creek, and maybe buoyed to show location, like the many nets in the main river - or withied - There are old oyster beds along the full length of the creek where my mooring is, Oysters are laid there from time to time or grow themselves - and might be more in the future - particularly with the local hatchery - and both moorings and oysters in Pyefleet managed by the Oyster Fishery there - can't imagine the moorings in either being removed for the oysters. Probably more of an issue with the big seagulls, who seem to enjoy an oyster or two on my deck
Click to expand...

No I can't see the problem either.

But it's a fact there have been aggressive confrontations in the past by entitled fishermen claiming the right to prevent anchoring anywhere in Kirby creek and that's despite layings there being abandoned some while in the past due to unacceptable levels of contamination. Until recently a sign was present at the northern end of Kirby creek saying anchoring was not permitted and "several orders" - whatever that means - were in place to prevent it.

I'm concerned that the commencement of layings in the Wade are very much the thin end of a wedge and if they're a success who knows where else in the Backwaters will be commandeered to the detriment of the rest of us.

Right here and right now anchoring in Kirby creek is unrestricted, as indeed are the rest of the Backwaters and I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be very happy for it to stay that way.
 
WFA said:
A Several Order gives the holder the legal right to fish or dredge for the specified shellfish within the defined area.
Click to expand...

Ah it's a Several Order, not several orders. Thanks.

For anybody with an interest in this and according to Gov.UK The Fish Health Inspectorate will inspect the proposed site and if they are satisfied it will be approved and a Several Order granted. Once granted records must be kept of shellfish movements in and out of the area and regular checks and samples will be taken by inspectors. The legislation stresses adequate biosecurity measures have to be taken too but doesn't define what they are.

Several Orders can be granted for up to 60 years but 10 to 20 years is more common.

Relevant bit for us leisure sailors is that once an Order is in place it's an offence for anyone else "to disturb or injure the shellfish or to interfere with or damage the shellfish beds without authorisation from the order holder."

Where the burden of proof lies that anchoring in an Order area is actually disturbing or injuring shellfish or who - if anybody - is entitled to place and/or police any no anchoring requirement within an Order area isn't clear.

The Order application process is long winded taking up to a year and encourages the applicant to consult with other interested parties who have an interest in the area concerned including sports and recreational users and navigation and harbour authorities.
 
Last edited:
Sailing steve said:
.

Relevant bit for us leisure sailors is that once an Order is in place it's an offence for anyone else "to disturb or injure the shellfish or to interfere with or damage the shellfish beds without authorisation from the order holder."

Where the burden of proof lies that anchoring in an Order area is actually disturbing or injuring shellfish or who - if anybody - is entitled to place and/or police any no anchoring requirement within an Order area isn't clear.
Click to expand...
I wonder if this legislation is still in place https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1868/45/pdfs/ukpga_18680045_en.pdf

If so, page 337 says:
1000039566.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 1000039566.jpg
    1000039566.jpg
    370.5 KB · Views: 0
Red above in #37 gives exemption for Navigation or Anchorage so maybe all can be accommodated.

Is this a case for boating people.- Kirby creek users - to lobby to be considered in any consultation period with view to part but not all of the Backwaters being designated for oysters - maybe beds at the side of some of the river being designated - which are best for maturing oysters if they dry out at low tide (the wild oysters like the old beds) - but the central parts left clear for anchoring-

I have heard from a fisheries protection officer that shellfish beds generally are kept healthier if worked - removing dead molluscs etc.

Maybe speak to the oyster people to see what is intended, to see if can work with them for a solution everyone is happy with.
 
Last edited:
Egret said:
Red above in #37 gives exemption for Navigation or Anchorage so maybe all can be accommodated.

Is this a case for boating people.- Kirby creek users - to lobby to be considered in any consultation period with view to part but not all of the Backwaters being designated for oysters - maybe beds at the side of some of the river being designated - which are best for maturing oysters if they dry out at low tide (the wild oysters like the old beds) - but the central parts left clear for anchoring-

Maybe speak to the oyster people to see what is intended, to see if can work with them for a solution everyone is happy with.
Click to expand...
Thing is though the legislation Plum posted at #37 is over 100 years old and from a time when only poor people ate oysters and nobody cared if they died of starvation or not. It's a rather different story now when a dozen can be sold for nearly thirty quid.

Starting a conversation is an excellent idea. I'll be out and about on the Backwaters fairly often from now on and if I see any likely person to have a chat with I'll see if I can find out what's occurring.

Still worth considering a collective lobby to the relevant body as well though because of course when vested interests are involved you can never be sure if you're being told the entire truth or not.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top