Trout 'more important than trees' says environmentalist

Trout 'more important than trees' says environmentalist Trout 'more important than trees' says environmentalist

A row over the felling of 70 trees along the river Wandle is putting environmentalists at loggerheads.

The Wandle Trust, a charity which is trying to restore a stretch of the river between Carshalton and Hackbridge, has met opposition after announcing it is to start cutting down trees in order to give the river more light.

Environmentalist Jim Duffy, of Birchwood Avenue, Wallington said: "The trust wants to increase the amount of trout in the area, but they shouldn't be sacrificing trees to do so. Trees bring advantages in terms of visual and sound screening, absorbing pollution and provide an interesting skyline."

"Sutton has one of the lowest counts of woodland of all London boroughs, despite our relatively high number of street trees, it doesn't make sense to cut trees down."

Toby Hull from the Wandle Trust disagrees.

He said: "The trees being cut down are mainly sycamore trees, they are invasive and non indigenous, they put everything in the shade.

"This work needs doing for the long term benefit of the river. The brown trout population was decimated and in the 1960's the stretch of river was an open sewer. We are luckily enough to have one of Britain's chalkstreams and we want to restore it."

Comments(1)

Gráinne O'Malley says...
11:20am Mon 11 Feb 13

Hi

Your article doesn't state exactly why it is that shade is a bad thing for the trout. I would have thought that if they didn't like a shady bit they just swim off to a brighter patch? Is that too simplistic?

Using phrases such as "invasive and non indigenous" (whether they are true or not) are irrelevant to the fact that they produce shade and therefore unhelpful to anyone trying to decide on the best course of action. If these trees are indeed invasive then perhaps there are other ways of dealing with them?

I am familiar with the river Wandle between Carshalton and Croydon although not the section up to Hackbridge. Some parts are definitely shady, though some are not and it seems to me that both are needed for the most naturalistic environment along the riverbank. I would suggest that keeping all parts of the river pollution free would be hugely more beneficial to the trout, and in fact all the wildlife using the river as well as the odd child paddling in the Summer, then removing a large number of trees.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree