Jump to content

Coarse Fish Removal - New Byelaws To Protect Fisheries

Anglers' Net

By Anglers' Net
in Conservation & Politics

 Share

Recommended Posts

Worms Member

Worms

Posted
Posted (edited)
Who is going to pay for the policing of your new proposels. Don't ask me as a tax and rate payer, as i have enough already to pay for. :huh:

Not my proposals Barry, I fought tooth and nail against it. Blame cuddly wuddly Benson and Hedges lovers and the AT (both kinds) for that **** up.

 

As a freshwater angler I pay for a licence that will police the new regulations and stop me from taking one decent sized fish for tea but allow me to take two small ones.......all in the name of fish stock conservation!

 

You can bet your boots that the day I catch and take home a grayling of 381mm I will be landed on by more EA bailiffs than I have ever seen in 40 years of fishing.......in the meantime the local noddies will be strolling off with pockets full of salmon parr to throw in the bin when mother doesn't know what to do with them 'cos they're not in a tin/packet/Mc Donalds :wallbash:

 

Shout louder mate!

Edited by Worms

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Chris Goddard Member

Chris Goddard

Posted
Posted
Not my proposals Barry, I fought tooth and nail against it. Blame cuddly wuddly Benson and Hedges lovers and the AT (both kinds) for that **** up.

 

As a freshwater angler I pay for a licence that will police the new regulations and stop me from taking one decent sized fish for tea but allow me to take two small ones.......all in the name of fish stock conservation!

 

You can bet your boots that the day I catch and take home a grayling of 381mm I will be landed on by more EA bailiffs than I have ever seen in 40 years of fishing.......in the meantime the local noddies will be strolling off with pockets full of salmon parr to throw in the bin when mother doesn't know what to do with them 'cos they're not in a tin/packet/Mc Donalds :wallbash:

 

Shout louder mate!

 

 

You most CERTAINLY WILL!!!

 

Sorry but someone had to stick there head up!

 

To the posting I have to agree with the main thrust of the argument! BUT has it not always been a sort of knee jerk reaction?? Here in France ALL Anglers remove fish for the table! Majority are Catfish,Pike and the like. They will also take some small silver fish but usually as bait. And even then bait fish are readily available. But the catfish are VERY quick to reproduce indeed! I last eyar while researching waters was able to view a local to me Lake of around 2 acres in size. The water was right next to the River Mayenne and it contained catfish. Now the owner did not tell me this and I have not seen anything about the water before. So HOW did I know it contained catfish for certain? Well maybe it was the thousands of tiny catfish which covered the surface of the water!!! There were literally THOUSANDS of them in there! Now of course they do not ALL survive, but lots do and they are fished for BUT there are so many waters like this that the stock is ultimately sustainable. If you take the road from my House to say Pouance which is a distance of around 8Km's. there are I think I counted last time 15 waters which DO hold stocks of fish! And ARE fished regularly and perhaps another dozen which I cannot tell and these are the ones I can SEE from the road!!! That is 8Km's and one road! So the French have MADE the opportunity to take fish and turned it into a real opportunity!

 

Now look at the UK??..............

 

Just a thought guys!!

Chris Goddard


It is to be observed that 'angling' is the name given to fishing by people who can't fish.

If GOD had NOT meant us to go fishing, WHY did he give us arms then??

(If you can't help out someone in need then don't bother my old Dad always said! My grandma put it a LITTLE more, well different! It's like peeing yourself in a black pair of pants she said! It gives you a LOVELY warm feeling but no-one really notices!))

Link to comment
Share on other sites
barry luxton Member

barry luxton

Posted
Posted

Went to a cash and carry up london yesterday, the fish counter looked quite impressive, two that took my eye, one was catfish fillets, the second was carp. Don't suppose they was sorced locally?

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Coppolo Member

Steve Coppolo

Posted
Posted

Just got my copy of the Angling Trust news letter which carries a monthly lists of AT achievements during 2009. Obviously, I can't see any mention of these new restrictions, though, because they are one of the biggest defeats for angling in recent times - and the idea of the news letter is to highlight the AT's successes. Or spin non events into successes, depending on how you want to look at it. However, you would think that any imposed restrictions on anglers might afford at least a mention in the news letter of the body which claims to represent all anglers. Since it doesn't, I don't even know if the AT oposed these restrictions - and for all I know, they may have even supported them?

 

It makes me wonder how sea anglers, if they leave it up to the AT, will fare in the ongoing and future battles that will be fought over the MCZ's and MPA's?

DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

 

Don't drink and drive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Elton Member

Elton

Posted
Posted

Just so you're aware, there are a few added comments here:

 

http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/forums/Removal...s-t2236431.html

 

Is it actually worth any of us objecting to these restrictions? The line that reads "After responding to any objections, the Environment Agency will formally apply to the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers for confirmation." kind of indicates that you're wasting your breath.

Anglers' Net Shopping Partners - Please Support Your Forum

CLICK HERE for all your Amazon purchases - books, photography equipment, DVD's and more!

CLICK HERE for Go Outdoors. HUGE discounts!

 

FOLLOW ANGLERS' NET ON TWITTER- CLICK HERE - @anglersnet

PLEASE 'LIKE' US ON FACEBOOK - CLICK HERE

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ColinW Member

ColinW

Posted
Posted
As a freshwater angler I pay for a licence that will police the new regulations and stop me from taking one decent sized fish for tea but allow me to take two small ones.......all in the name of fish stock conservation!

 

Sounds daft put that way. However those regulations will also stop me from taking three decent sized fish for tea but allow me to take two small ones. That way it seems more "conservationist", doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Elton Member

Elton

Posted
Posted
Sounds daft put that way. However those regulations will also stop me from taking three decent sized fish for tea but allow me to take two small ones. That way it seems more "conservationist", doesn't it?

 

I suppose that depends whether they've spawned or not.

Anglers' Net Shopping Partners - Please Support Your Forum

CLICK HERE for all your Amazon purchases - books, photography equipment, DVD's and more!

CLICK HERE for Go Outdoors. HUGE discounts!

 

FOLLOW ANGLERS' NET ON TWITTER- CLICK HERE - @anglersnet

PLEASE 'LIKE' US ON FACEBOOK - CLICK HERE

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ColinW Member

ColinW

Posted
Posted
It sounds daft Colin because it is, is it better to take three good sized fish that have spawned at least once or take two fish out of the reproductive system that will never get the chance to spawn, daft is'nt it

 

Crossed post

 

Actually I think it's better to take the two small ones. Which fish are most likely to reach the "safe" size? I'd say it would be the fastest growing, strongest ones. Those are the ones that I'd want breeding. Isn't that how natural selection generally operates?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Worms Member

Worms

Posted
Posted
Sounds daft put that way. However those regulations will also stop me from taking three decent sized fish for tea but allow me to take two small ones. That way it seems more "conservationist", doesn't it?

Yes, but most, if not all legitimate (licensed) anglers that take fish for the pot only take what they require on an occasional basis. If I needed to feed half a dozen people on fish I'd take a fillet or two of pollack out of the freezer or, if I had none I'd go to the supermarket and buy some.

 

If an illegal angler decides to feed his family on big (or small) fish then new rules aren't likely to stop him. If the angler is legitimate and wants to take the odd 4-5lb barbel for tea then why not? The Govt., foodies, supermarkets and Uncle Tom Cobbley are hammering into us about food miles, carbon footprints etc and how line caught fish is more sustainable, then they ban it :wallbash:

 

Police the existing regulations and leave it to the angler to be sensible. Most of us have got it right for years, (look at wild trout!)

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.

  I accept