Zander FAQs

Some organisations such as the Great Britain Non-Native Species Secretariat take the view that the cut-off point should be the last ice age as do Natural England. Other scientific authors (there was an interesting article in the Royal Society of Biology magazine in 2015 on this topic) prefer to use a date of around AD 1500 as a cut-off point, accepting that species introduced into the wild prior to this time should now be classified as native. Common carp and crucian carp would be classified as native under this definition. We are not currently aware of any nationally significant conservation organisation that would consider species introduced into enclosed stillwaters  in the 19th century from overseas as native.

From a practical viewpoint, as you can see in our KIFR site permit listed in Annex 1 are species which cannot be kept unless specifically stated in the KIFR permit and listed in Annex 2 are species which can be kept without a KIFR permit.

The secretariat has responsibility for national co-ordination of response to non-native invasive species within Great Britain working with government, businesses, charities, and other groups. Ecologist Richard Bennett is the Trust’s lead for Invasive Species and the key day to day contact with the GBNNSS.

The national Fisheries & Angling Team supported by the Trust’s Fisheries & Angling Advisory Group  provide technical support and specific knowledge around non-native fish species. The Trust is seen as a key national partner in invasive species management and we attend various steering groups, working groups, and stakeholder meetings to discuss policy changes, coordinate action, increase awareness and drive new methods of invasive species control/science.

The zander risk assessment was published during 2021. Zander are classified as an invasive non-native fish species of medium risk. It is likely that in some locations, such as fast flowing upland streams zander would be of lower than medium risk. As the environment here would be unsuitable for them. In other environments such as narrow shallow turbid boated canals, they would be of higher than medium risk. This is because peer reviewed published research has shown that zander cause significant ecological harm in such environments.

Information on the non-native fish species can be found here.

Zander were illegally introduced to the canal network in the Coventry area in the early to mid-1970’s, assumedly by misguided anglers, without consent being issued by the relevant water authority. This was confirmed by Neville Fickling at the 2019 Hatton zander workshop. Zander had been legally introduced into the Great Ouse Relief Channel back in or around 1963 by the Great Ouse River Authority but could not have possibly made their way legally to the North Oxford Canal where they were first recorded by the Severn Trent water authority fisheries team in 1976.

A few years ago, zander were reported in the Sankey St Helens canal, most of which is not owned by the Trust. The Environment Agency North West undertook rapid response boom boat electric fishing to eradicate these individual fish and prevent a new illegally introduced population from establishing.

No zander have been recorded here subsequently.

Yes, there is a high risk of this without ongoing management action. The Trent & Mersey is the gateway from the Midlands canals up to the north west canal network including the Shropshire Union Canal and Llangollen Canal and the Macclesfield Canal links both to the north-west and north east region canal network and connected river catchments. Natural England and the Environment Agency do not wish to see additional spread and Natural Resources Wales do not wish to see zander arrive in Wales.

To expand on the answer to the previous question, some canals have overflows into rivers so when a non-native species is present there is always the potential for spread. Major canal breaches such as the event which happened at Middlewich in March 2018, Llangollen Canal in 2025 and on the Ashby Canal in 2020 also offer a conduit for non-native invasive species to enter new river catchments.

In the case of the Ashby Canal, zander were found just metres from the River Mease Site of Special Scientific Interest, a site designated for its assemblage of native fish species. Therefore, it is important that further populations on non-native species do not become established. It should be noted that at its own expense, Canal & River Trust were required to undertake fish population surveys on the River Mease to ensure that zander were not subsequently present. It is certainly possible that if they had of escaped from the canal and entered the river at this location, legal action would have been taken against Canal & River Trust.

Unfortunately, yes. Several new isolated populations of zander have appeared at locations such as Stone and Barlaston on the Trent & Mersey, Great Heywood on the Staffs & Worcester Canal, Catherine de Barnes on the Grand Union Canal and on the Worcester & Birmingham around Stoke Prior.

On the Trent & Mersey, it should be noted that no zander were found upstream or downstream of the respective areas for several miles which effectively rules out the possibility of a more natural migration from further south. Zander also appeared in the Moira Canal in 2020 and other investigation work is ongoing to confirm some additional illegal introductions. Some of these Illegally introduced isolated populations have now probably been eradicated.

This topic is covered in detail in Phil Smith doctoral research. One of the key abiotic factors favouring zander is water turbidity. The fish species most negatively impacted are bullhead, a species with additional legal protection, gudgeon and roach. Gudgeon, which are an important component of the fish biota of the canal ecosystem, rapidly disappearing within a short time of the illegal introduction of zander.

There is no peer reviewed published research illustrating the recovery of gudgeon population on canals following the illegal introduction of zander. Roach population tend to be come dominated by a few large individual fish were whole year classes virtually absent for the fish community. It has also been suggested that Zander also tend to outcompete the native pike in turbid waterways.

Fenland drains and heavily boat-trafficked canals are substantially different ecosystems and are therefore not useful comparators. Shallow boated canals are typically turbid with consistently high suspended solid levels caused by boat traffic movement. This favours zander as they are very well adapted to feeding in low light intensity situations.

It is believed that they outcompete the native European pike which feed more visually. There is probably a permanent change in the fish community with gudgeon eliminated and roach populations declining significantly  and often an increase in large bream. Natural England are of the opinion that that is a negative correlation between increased bream biomass and the unfavourable condition of some Sites of Special Scientific Interest on the canal network.  

There is no scientific evidence published as yet of any shallow boated canal with established zander populations returning to its balanced pre-zander introduction community dominated by roach and gudgeon. Many dozens of angling clubs have given up agreements for canal fishing rights once zander become established in their canal sections.

Currently our work is focused on aiding native fish stock species recovery, halting the further migration, and spread of zander and the protection and restoration of SSSI’s in unfavourable condition. This benefits the ecology of our waterways and is in line with the Trust KIFR permit. Eradication, defined as the total removal of zander from the narrow canal network would be possible by systematic drain down but this would be quite expensive and logistically challenging. Whilst this is an option the Trust are not currently exploring, it cannot be ruled out as a future management option, particularly if the Trust is ultimately required to undertake such action by the regulators.

Here is a full list  of reasons why the Trust undertakes its current management work:

• To prevent further slow natural spread beyond the current range and into new catchments (including via infrastructure failure or flooding events)
• To reduce risk of prosecution/civil action for allowing such spread as above. The Trust is at risk of legal action from negative impacts on third party owned fisheries if we allow these fisheries to be negatively impacted by the spread of invasive non-native fish species emanating from our property. There is case law around this principle, established in Williams verses Network Rail (2018)
• To eradicate newly identified illegally stocked populations
• To protect native fish biodiversity including bullhead (an IUCN listed species ) and gudgeon. Loss of roach will also have impacts on the wider ecosystem e.g. as food for kingfishers, herons etc
• To ensure compliance with the Trust duty to further conservation as set out in the British Waterway Act 1995
• As a statutory body the Trust are bound by the need to conserve and enhance biodiversity under S40 NERC 2006 and to work towards the government’s 25-year Environment plan
• To protect and enable recovery/restoration of SSSI’s in unfavourable condition e.g. Ashby & Foxton Kilby
• To protect Trust income from fishing rights
• To prevent potentially putting water transfer schemes at risk
• To ensure our fisheries remain suitable for Let’s Fish activity (sufficient fish to catch throughout the coaching day) and to potentially reinstate those not currently deemed suitable
• To satisfy most customer clubs as set out in our regional fisheries & angling action plans, (2015)  including the protection of the quality of silver fish fishing, especially roach
• To ensure compliance with KIF Regulations 2015 and individual KIFR permits
• The risk of the regulator deciding to undertake the zander management work itself and then recharging the Trust for the privilege
• To illustrate  that the principle of illegal introductions of fish by anglers will not be tolerated and responsible organisations and charities will not merely  ‘wave the white flag’. As the largest owners of freshwater fishing rights in the UK The reputation of the sport of angling matters to the Trust, and we believe it’s certainly not ideal for anglers to be considered by the general public as illegal spreaders of invasive non-native fish species. The Trust believes that it weakens the case for anglers to claim that they are guardians of the environment when some of them act in a negative way towards the environment

It was concluded in the 1990’s that electric fishing at the limits of the range of zander three times per annum would be sufficient to prevent further migration out of their existing range . With recent advances in design of boom boat electric fishing equipment, it is believed that twice per annum could now be sufficient to reduce zander biomass to the extent that it allows Cyprinid stocks to slowly recover. According to Smith, at an electric fishing intensity of three or more times per annum for several years, it’s certainly possible that after a number of years, zander could be eradicated at the extremities of their current range.

Yes, we receive feedback urging us to do both far more and conversely, we also receive feedback urging us to do much less or nothing to control zander. It is fair to say that the latter group tend to be more vociferous on social media.

We are not aware of any such complaints or comments to date. Significant conservation organisations understand the reasons for and support the trusts current programme of management activity in relation to invasive non-native fish species.

The following is an extract from the Angling Trust website ‘In canals and enclosed stillwaters, riparian owners have the right, subject to obtaining regulatory approvals, to manage their fish stocks as they see fit.

This is a principle supported by the Angling Trust and applies as much to the establishment of bespoke waters for crucians and tench by removing and reducing the impact of unwanted species as it does to zander removal in favour of native silver fish stocks and their subsequent recovery and protection.

Potentially yes, the presence of non-native species and the risk of transfer of these species into new catchment could be a show-stopper for water transfer projects such as the proposed transfer of water from the Midlands to the south east currently being explored. This matters because the Trust needs to optimise commercial income to help maintain our 225-year-old historic network of waterways for future generations.

The Trust typically invests upwards of £1 million per annum on the management of non-native invasive species. That compared to around £1.7 billion in the UK as a whole. Around 7 or 8 % of the Trust annual total budget for invasive non-native species is invested on non-native fish species management in an average year.

With reports of illegal introduction of non-native fish species, assumedly by misguided anglers, on the increase, this expenditure figure around zander could possibly rise further  over time. Some of this budget is also allocated for the concurrent removal of wels catfish, another non-native fish species which are appearing in increasing numbers on sections of the Grand Union Canal.

Over the past few years, the Trust have focussed its efforts on preventing as follows:

• Preventing the establishment of new illegally introduced populations as and when they are reported to us
• Protecting and restoring the Ashby and Kilby/Foxton Sites of Special Scientific Interest, both of which are in unfavourable condition
• To prevent further spread from the current known range including into new river catchments
• Work to enable some recovery of roach stocks at locations such as the southern Grand Union, Grand Union Leicester Line, Ashby, Coventry, and South Oxford canals

If the canal network was a total enclosed stillwater, then this could perhaps be a potential option. However, the canal network is an open system with numerous connections to adjacent waterbodies. It also connects river catchments where zander or not currently present and where no one wishes to see zander present.

The ‘do nothing’ option does not prevent ongoing spread and there is no per reviewed published scientific papers suggesting populations of the species most impacted by zander (bullhead, gudgeon and roach) ever recover to that which existed prior to the illegal introduction.

Many observers, including our own Fisheries & Angling Advisory Group members believe that not acting when fish are illegally introduced will encourage yet more illegal fish movement.

No, this is not true. The regulators have the power to insist that management of non-native invasive fish is undertaken at any time. Indeed they have the power to enter private property, which could include the canal network and undertake the removal of invasive non-native fish species themselves and recharge the Trust accordingly.

An example of the Environment Agency undertaking management of invasive non-native fish species can be found here.

Yes, we have done on two separate occasions, with neither application being successful. For reasons not currently understood, funding for reducing the impacts that non-native fish species cause to native fish species cannot currently be accessed through this route.

Fish in the enclosed canal network and in Trust owned stillwaters are the property of Canal & River Trust. Fish in rivers are deemed to be wild. The Trust is permitted to keep and stock those species of fish listed on our KIFR permits.

A KIFR site permit, issued by the EA in England and NRW in Wales is a legal permit which allows you to keep and introduce fish into your fishery.

It is our current understanding that it’s an offence under part 1 of schedule 9 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act (1981) (as amended) and section 14 of this Act.

Section 14 W&CA prohibits introduction into the wild of any animal which is not ordinarily resident in, and is not a regular visitor to, Great Britain in a wild state, or any species of animal or plant listed in Schedule 9 to the Act.

Schedule 9 lists non-native species already established in the wild, which continue to pose a conservation threat to native biodiversity and habitats. Zander are listed as Schedule 9 species. Additionally, the terms and conditions of our KIFR permits do not currently permit the return of zander.

Yes, there is a link to a joint statement agreed by the Environment Agency, Natural England, Canal & River Trust and signed off by DEFRA here

No, according to Natural England, the Environment Agency and DEFRA, there are currently no locations where the Wildlife & Countryside Act does not apply. Consequently, there are no locations on the canal network where zander can be legally returned.

The situation on stillwaters is the same as on canals, except where they are totally enclosed. In the latter case, non-native invasive species may in principle be kept depending on the conditions of the EA KIFR permit. However, it will still be an offence to return zander caught on rod and line under the Wildlife & Countryside Act, even on totally enclosed stillwaters.

This applied even where zander are kept legally under the terms and conditions of the fishery KIFR permit, an anomaly that Canal & River Trust believe does need to be addressed by the regulators.

It is not currently lawful, as stated in the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 to return the zander. Unless you possess a valid KIFR permit, you cannot legally introduce it into another fishery. If you or your club do have a valid KIFR permit e.g. to enable transfer to a totally enclosed stillwater, you could need a valid Live Fish supplier permit to be allowed to transport a non-native fish species.

These are issued by the Environment Agency. The other option is to euthanise the fish in the same manner as trout anglers or sea anglers  do with their catch that they choose to take home for personal consumption. We recommend the use of a priest or similar implement to undertake the dispatch process.

Yes, back in 2015 when KIFR permits were being introduced, the Trust applied for a small ‘Midlands canal zander zone’. The Environment Agency did not grant this application. However, as the law currently stands this is not legally possible. One potential short-term option would be for a for a time limited license issued for independent bona fide scientific research reasons with an area within the Midlands canal network acting as the control.

Significant funding would be required to undertake scientifically rigorous research. One potential funding source is that segment of the tackle industry with a commercial interest in invasive non-native species. To date, the Trust has had not been seriously approach by anyone with the financial means to fund such research.

Natural England’s advice is set out in this document.

There are currently no zander in the Welsh canals. NRW are keen to ensure that non-native invasive fish species do not cross the border into Welsh fisheries. The Welsh government take the same view. The same laws regarding non-native fish species apply in Wales as in England.

In the UK, making and amendment of law is a matter for the democratic parliamentary system. If you believe that law around invasive non-native species makes no sense, then one obvious option is to lobby your elected representatives for change in the national approach to invasive non-native species.

Yes, the Environment Agency produced evidence that wels catfish had been illegally introduced to the fishery. As the Engine pool connects to the River Blythe (a Site of Special Scientific Interest) the reservoir is classified as not being totally enclosed.

Therefore, it’s not possible to be authorised to keep non-native fish species as listed in annex 1 of the KIFR permit in the fishery. We agreed a timetable for these works with the local Environment Agency fisheries officer.

The agreement for fishing rights that angling clubs sign up to is subject to adherence of ‘The byelaws of the Environment Agency and of the Trust and to the provisions of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975’ and ‘The KIFR site permit associated with the permitted length and the conditions of any statutory SSSI or SAC designation.’

All relevant health, safety, and environmental legislation, (which includes the Wildlife & Countryside Act (1981) A link to the Trust’s standard agreement for fishing rights document is here. This document will be reviewed again in the autumn of 2026.

In the event that a club decided to refuse to adhere to the terms of their agreement for fishing rights, Canal & River Trust would ultimately have no option but to terminate the arrangement.

Only a court of law would provide a definite answer to this question, but it may well be that club officers and (where a club has limited liability status) the board members of the club may be accountable for the actions of their members.

The Trust will share both the joint statement and relevant KIFR permits with its licensee clubs and bring to its attention the terms and conditions. The club then needs to do what is reasonable to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of its members.

It is suggested that clubs include relevant information in their constitutions, on their website, membership books, day permits and on social media sites. By undertaking these actions, it may well be considered they have endeavoured to have done all they reasonably can to point out the legal position to their members and permitted users.

An example of a fisheries and angling action plan is here. Theme 8 covers predation and non-native invasive species. These plans were produced in a partnership between the Trust and stakeholder angling clubs. These regional plans will be replaced by one national fisheries and angling action plan with an estimated launch time of April 2027. Draft versions will be shared with the fisheries and angling advisory group for their input.

Whilst we will endeavour to work with a club around mutually convenient timetables, the fishery and the fish stocks do belong the Trust and we have a right to manage accordingly for the purposes of our undertaking.

 Yes, we much prefer a small number of representatives (one or two) from the controlling club to be present where possible so that our work is witnessed.

Yes, we estimate that at least 40 clubs have given up fishing rights predominately because of the decline in native fish stocks especially of roach and gudgeon associated with the presence of zander. In many other cases, where clubs have not terminated entirely, rental income to the Trust has declined.

We believe that all clubs can and do cater for various forms of anglers.

Clubs are rarely made up exclusively of one type of angler. There are currently two clubs with a significant interest in lure fishing and whose membership is predominantly (although not exclusively) lure fishing based who rent fishing rights from the Trust. These at Lure Anglers Canal Club and Tusses Angling Club.

It is important not to mix up issues around invasive non-native fish species with a fishing method which is successfully used to capture many species, especially perch, pike, chub and occasionally other species too.

What the Trust, and we believe most of its fisheries & angling stakeholders, are not in favour of is the continued spread of non-native invasive species and the subsequent impact that this has on fish stocks, the wider canal ecology, the negative reputation of anglers as illegal spreaders of non-native invasive species etc.

Authorisations to use electric fishing is issued under the Salmon & Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (as amended) by the Environment Agency in England and Natural Resources Wales in Wales.

Very few if any clubs have access to the necessary boom boat electric fishing equipment. Some clubs do however make an additional financial contribution towards the Trust work around nonnative invasive species.

These fish are covered under the Trusts site permit and are owned by the Trust. It is the Trust’s responsibility to manage them in line with legislation.

Electric fishing is a technique used widely throughout the fisheries world both in Europe and globally. The Trust are not aware of any significant evidence of damage to fish. If the technique was deemed to be damaging, we reasonably assume that the regulators themselves (EA and NRW) would not issue consent for the use of this equipment or indeed use electric fishing themselves for fish population surveys and other essential fisheries management work. Most of our fisheries management work is carried out between September and April. We only use electric fishing in the warmest summer months if required in emergency situations.

Zander are one of the more susceptible species and are relatively easily captured using boom boat electric fishing equipment. The use of a collection back boat which works anywhere from 10 to perhaps 50 metres behind the main boat improves removal rate by up to 50% and some zander of around 15 cm and under are often retrieved by the operative on the back boat.

As resources permit, will we also consider undertaking seine netting as an additional fisheries management technique to remove an even greater proportion of the smaller zander. At some locations, the Trust undertake a complete dewatering of sections of canal between locks and we are able to remove 100% of the zander present, including fish under 15cms in length, using this technique.

This would be a more expensive option and iconic ecologically important canal species such as gudgeon are not available in commercial fish restocking market and indeed would quickly be predated if the zander population was not managed. This option does not address the issue around preventing the further spread of zander into new catchments, the protection of SSSI’s in unfavourable condition nor does it address the various other reasons for our work outlined elsewhere in these FAQs.

We believe that failing to show proactive management will further encourage the small minority of irresponsible anglers who wish to see the spread zander far and wide.

There are five options potentially available to the Trust:

1. Translocation to a fishery with a valid KIFR permit for zander
2. Academic research
3. For use as fertilizer
4. Incineration
5. Introduction to the food chain

The Trusts preferred option is to relocate lives under to those fisheries with a valid site permit. We encourage those who wish to do so to consider establishing more totally enclosed still waters where Zander are permitted to be restocked.  We are in the early stages of undertaking additional academic research with Leeds University who hope to be in a position to fund a doctorate in due course.

Above and beyond this we understand that smaller fish are incinerated, and larger fish may be incinerated, enter the food chain or are used as animal food at zoo’s. The result of this is that there is currently no net cost to the Trust. As well as our internal procurement team, our National Angling Advisory Group have endorsed this approach believing, as do the Trust, that it is currently the greenest option available.

Following communication with the Environment Agency, we have been informed that an application to introduce zander to rivers within the Great Ouse catchment would be refused. The number of totally enclosed stillwater fisheries with the requisite KIFR permits for zander is limited  and it is unlikely that owns or occupiers would want the volume and size ranges  of available zander introduced to their fisheries. We remain happy to work with any organisations or individuals that have the necessary KIFR permit in place for legally keeping zander.

We are not aware of any peer-reviewed published research which proves supports this hypothesis.

No, income that the contractor may potentially earn from the sale of euthansied zander, balance out their costs associated with the incineration of the fish that are too small for consumption.

The Trust is not aware of any such issues but in any event, these would not be the responsibility of the Trust.

Yes, the Trust occasionally do this, we have previously worked with Bournemouth University investigating zander diet and have plans to work alongside Leeds University going forward.

The Trust have three e-learning fisheries modules. Any staff involved with fish rescue on the ground are required to complete the fish rescue module and then pass the end of module test. Therefore, the chances of a Trust employee making an error and inadvertently returning a non-native species to the water  is significantly reduced.

Seagulls are notoriously adaptable and opportunistic birds. In urban areas they live closely alongside people taking advantage of both goodwill in feeding the birds or the waste people leave behind. Many people have been the victim of a snatched chip or ice cream from these birds. They are comfortable getting in close proximity of people. Most fish that are stunned are below water level and quickly recover safely.

Some fish do come to the surface, and it is inevitable that where present, gulls will take opportunity of this, and a small number of fish will be eaten before they fully recover. Our priority remains the protection of our native fish stocks from the impacts of illegally introduced invasive non-native fish species and the risk of their spread to new catchments.

The Trust are a significant national deliverer of angling participation activity through its Let's Fish programme, introducing several thousand new anglers into the sport each year. We host nationally significant events such as Let's Fish Regional Celebrations, the Let's Fish National Celebration of Young People and Fishing, and the Let's Fish Daiwa Global Communities Celebration delivery partner in the Environment Agency strategic services contract. There is plenty of information about our Let’s Fish campaign here.

Our Lets fish events are predominantly aimed at newcomers to fishing and their families. We work closely with over 30 schools; all the participants attending actually get to fish at least twice, With many going on to become regular anglers including attending our celebration events With 8 million people living within 1000 meters of one of our fisheries, there are many tens of thousands of potential anglers to be introduced to fishing on our waterways.

One of our 12 Let’s Fish principles is the fishing journey is a ladder to be climbed. Our philosophy is that you should start off learning basic bait presentation and developing skills to catch fish such as gudgeon, roach, rudd, perch and skimmers. Other fishing ambitions, including predator fishing and specimen carp fishing can come later, once the basic core skills have been instilled. One of our key objectives is for as many participants as possible to catch a fish at the first time of asking. We believe that initial success in that first session is vitally important for stimulating long term interest. Where non-native invasive species impact on the key species targeted at Let’s Fish events, it hampers our ability to hold successful Let’s fish events.

Lure fishing is an important part of an ongoing angling participation pathway. The Trust has its own Let’s Fish awards programme comprising of four fishing tactics basic units, four fishing and the environment units, and five specialist awards. One of our specialist awards focuses on predator angling. Predator angling is a branch of the sport that as many people who wish to should be exposed to and encouraged to perfect their skills. However, it is not our preferred technique for initial introductory sessions at Let’s Fish events.

To ensure compliance around safeguarding, significantly more coaching resource and hence budget is required compared to traditional Let’s Fish introduction activity and the chances of large numbers of pupils all catching at least one and ideally several fish including two or three different species in an introductory session are, on balance, quite low. Much of our Let's Fish work is undertaken during the warmer months when  anglers rightly have concerns about the risks associated with fishing for predators in warm water.