Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Carp for the Pot.


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#31 gozzer

gozzer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,217 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Leeds

Posted 30 November 2009 - 01:07 PM

I'd see it more like a picket line during the height of the miners strike. Cross the line and you're forever a scab, never welcome at the fishing shop or angling club again.

Rob.


Do you mean like these clowns Rob?

http://www.itv.com/w...keprotest14050/

John.
Angling is more than just catching fish, if it wasn't it would just be called 'catching'......... John

#32 lutra

lutra

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,251 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:lancashire
  • Interests:fishing

Posted 30 November 2009 - 08:12 PM

The EA is currently considering introducing new legislation which will make it illegal to take certain coarse species from rivers, even if you own the land and the fishing rights, but they have not done this yet.

Its going to be interesting to see what the EA comes up with as there was some talk of none native species being exempt from this new legislation. As far as i can tell it was the taking of carp, barbel and pike that seems to have started all the concern about the taking fish off in the first place. Yet carp and barbel are considered none native in many rivers and from what I've heard lately size limits rather than a full ban is the way they are thinking of going with pike.
A tiger does not lose sleep over the opinion of sheep

#33 RobStubbs

RobStubbs

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,235 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Herts, England
  • Interests:fishing,photography, astronomy, football, target shooting

Posted 01 December 2009 - 07:58 AM

Its going to be interesting to see what the EA comes up with as there was some talk of none native species being exempt from this new legislation. As far as i can tell it was the taking of carp, barbel and pike that seems to have started all the concern about the taking fish off in the first place. Yet carp and barbel are considered none native in many rivers and from what I've heard lately size limits rather than a full ban is the way they are thinking of going with pike.

Carp are certainly classed as native species, and I'd be suprised if barbel weren't too. Barbel may have been introduced into some river systems but they've always been around. Carp have been here so long and have integrated into all waterways that they are have effectively been nationalised.

And last I heard, the taking of course fish was covered by regional byelaws and not EA legislation as such, but that process may well have changed since I last read the rules in details.

Rob.

#34 lutra

lutra

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,251 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:lancashire
  • Interests:fishing

Posted 01 December 2009 - 08:43 AM

Carp are certainly classed as native species, and I'd be suprised if barbel weren't too. Barbel may have been introduced into some river systems but they've always been around. Carp have been here so long and have integrated into all waterways that they are have effectively been nationalised.

Carp and barbel aren't species that i would consider native in the rivers around here or many other UK waters.

And last I heard, the taking of course fish was covered by regional byelaws and not EA legislation as such, but that process may well have changed since I last read the rules in details.

Rob.

The EA is looking to have those regional bylaws updated with new national ones.
A tiger does not lose sleep over the opinion of sheep

#35 RobStubbs

RobStubbs

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,235 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Herts, England
  • Interests:fishing,photography, astronomy, football, target shooting

Posted 01 December 2009 - 12:26 PM

Carp and barbel aren't species that i would consider native in the rivers around here or many other UK waters.


With respect it's irrelevant what we individually class them, the EA do class them as native species, and they make the rules.

The EA is looking to have those regional bylaws updated with new national ones.


I'll wait and see when the new ones come out then - that will probably take years as there's so many regional peculiarities.

Rob.

#36 gozzer

gozzer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,217 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Leeds

Posted 01 December 2009 - 03:54 PM

I'll wait and see when the new ones come out then - that will probably take years as there's so many regional peculiarities.

Rob.


The new national legislation should be in force sometime next year Rob.

From the EA website.

When the consultation closes on 14 September 2009, we will collate and publish a summary of the response on the internet. We will use the responses to inform how we draft the byelaws. Once we have decided to proceed with new byelaws, we will advertise them in the autumn (as we are required to do by law), allowing anyone to comment. We will need to answer each response to the advert, before we apply to government for confirmation. We expect the byelaws to become law in 2010.


I'd say it was a bit past Autumn now, and I haven't seen a full set of byelaws advertised yet though.

John.

Edited by gozzer, 01 December 2009 - 03:57 PM.

Angling is more than just catching fish, if it wasn't it would just be called 'catching'......... John

#37 lutra

lutra

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,251 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:lancashire
  • Interests:fishing

Posted 01 December 2009 - 09:48 PM

With respect it's irrelevant what we individually class them, the EA do class them as native species, and they make the rules.

As i understand it Rob the EA use a 150 year rule when deciding if a species is native to a water. Yes species like carp and barbel may be classed as native to this country, but they will fall foul of the 150 year rule on many waters so cant be called native on these waters.

Like a lot of anglers I'm waiting to see what the EA comes up with on this one.
A tiger does not lose sleep over the opinion of sheep

#38 Worms

Worms

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Herefordshire
  • Interests:Coarse sea and game angling, mainly with vintage tackle, wildlife, especially otters, Vintage motorcycles, eating wild caught fish......the list goes on

Posted 01 December 2009 - 10:16 PM

As i understand it Rob the EA use a 150 year rule when deciding if a species is native to a water. Yes species like carp and barbel may be classed as native to this country, but they will fall foul of the 150 year rule on many waters so cant be called native on these waters.

Like a lot of anglers I'm waiting to see what the EA comes up with on this one.

Native to individual waters or native to the country? I suspect it will be the latter. The good old Angling Times were responsible for barbel introductions in the 50's and 60's to quite a few rivers but the fish were already present in the country.

Can you imagine the balls up if the EA (or anyone else for that matter) tried to eliminate fish from waters that hadn't had a breeding stock for 150 years?

Bring back eat what you catch that's what I say! If you don't want to eat it then put it back, if you want to eat it then fine. If you haven't got a licence or permission however, then let loose the dogs of war!

Eating wild caught fish is good for my health, reduces food miles and keeps me fit trying to catch them........it's my choice to do it, not yours to stop me!

#39 lutra

lutra

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,251 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:lancashire
  • Interests:fishing

Posted 01 December 2009 - 10:24 PM

Native to individual waters or native to the country? I suspect it will be the latter. The good old Angling Times were responsible for barbel introductions in the 50's and 60's to quite a few rivers but the fish were already present in the country.

Can you imagine the balls up if the EA (or anyone else for that matter) tried to eliminate fish from waters that hadn't had a breeding stock for 150 years?

Bring back eat what you catch that's what I say! If you don't want to eat it then put it back, if you want to eat it then fine. If you haven't got a licence or permission however, then let loose the dogs of war!

Sadly i think the dogs of war have had muzzles put on them.
A tiger does not lose sleep over the opinion of sheep

#40 RobStubbs

RobStubbs

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,235 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Herts, England
  • Interests:fishing,photography, astronomy, football, target shooting

Posted 02 December 2009 - 07:53 AM

As i understand it Rob the EA use a 150 year rule when deciding if a species is native to a water. Yes species like carp and barbel may be classed as native to this country, but they will fall foul of the 150 year rule on many waters so cant be called native on these waters.

Like a lot of anglers I'm waiting to see what the EA comes up with on this one.


I think there's a large difference between the waters status and a species status. If I remember it correctly the species in a water thing is relating to the biodiversity action plan. Species as a whole relates to native and alien species. For the latter, it's the entire species that are classed as native or alien (or non native). The point is that carp are classified as a native species.

Rob.