I guess in the past it`s been differcult to get the relevant authorities worked up enough to take any positive action against illegal movements either from aboard or within the UK.
I`ll also hazard a guess that although things are changing you`ll still find it differcult to get convictions for such actions and those which are successful often result in relatively derisory fines that offer little or no discouragement to persistant offenders.
Remember there are whole teams of foreign fish thieves to contend with as well,it`s hardly a UK only probelm.

Chewing over old ground about which or what groups have/haven`t done in the past is a pretty pointless exercise really and the way forward is a unified approach as Paul has pointed out.

""how can someone join a party to try to put a stop to illegal imports... when the next time they go fishing its to try and catch fish that legally shouldnt be here ?""

Presumably the answer to that one is for ECHO to publish a list of "Approved" carp waters. There would then be no confusion amongst ECHO members as to which waters they should fish.

It would, once and for all, clarify ECHO's definition of an illegal historical import.

That should make interesting reading

Exactly what I mean Axe, Paul

How many members does echo currently have?

More importantly how many KNOW why they joined and understand their issues and policies?????

Piers..
To go through your points..
1. Agreed, punishment does not fit the crime...
2. Lessen the chance of disease.... Wanna bet??? sounds like a charter for fish farms to make shed loads of money.. and it's probably illegal under European Law, so a non starter to boot..
3. Care to mention a 'heritage' water that doesn't contain imports then..
4. Great idea.. as long as our 'heritage' is fully understood
I

...What exactly are you suggesting?..
Echo members cannot read,think or form an opinion of their own?...

It would be interesting to know how many members echo has because, I would guess, that membership is in some way proportional to lobbying power.

I am sure he is not Miasma, and yet it appears to some/many that details are required before parting with what may be a small sum of cash (per se) to an organisation who have yet to make their proposed legislation clear to all who may ask.

It is not the money (fee) here that is the issue here. I would suggest it is the principal of knowing what you are paying for based upon the details pertaining to the sport/passtime who we (carp anglers), by very definition have a right to know, so we can have the same right upon information, to agree or disagree with.

It is in very short supply I would suggest at this time, still.

Axe

...Echo 1 Smugglers 0 .....Good enough for me Axe!..
But I take exception with people who suggest my reasoning is unsound....