Martin Salter and Mark Lloyd fail to deliver again

[Bob Shotter]

Your twisting facts so offering speculation, they made their position clear where they stood re 2012 before they went to the first meeting. Go back through the a t press releases.

 

Sorry to disappoint Barry but the latest from the mouth of David Mitchell is as quoted so to are the facts that have emerged since the start of this CEFAS steering group Do try and keep up there’s a good chap.

[barry luxton]

Sorry to disappoint Barry but the latest from the mouth of David Mitchell is as quoted so to are the facts that have emerged since the start of this CEFAS steering group Do try and keep up there’s a good chap.

Perhaps you can be good enough to post up a few facts. Then we can have a look.

 

This was their position when 2012 was annouced.

 

http://www.anglingtrust.net/news.asp?secti...&itemid=900

Edited January 8, 2012 by barry luxton

[seafoods]

Perhaps you can be good enough to post up a few facts. Then we can have a look.

 

This was their position when 2012 was annouced.

 

http://www.anglingtrust.net/news.asp?secti...&itemid=900

 

Quality!

[seafoods]

as suggested in an earlier post the possibility of having a judicial review of the law

 

Have you ever looked into that Bob?, you don't just say 'I want a judicial review' and get it - if that was the case there would already be one happening. It would be about the Government proposals to ruin the UK Coastguard - guess what? - we can't afford one, even with volunteers like myself chipping in, we can't afford to lose so we can't take it on. Research before sillytalk.

[Bob Shotter]

Perhaps you can be good enough to post up a few facts. Then we can have a look.

 

This was their position when 2012 was annouced.

 

http://www.anglingtrust.net/news.asp?secti...&itemid=900

 

Mr Mitchell told a meeting of IFCA sea angling reps when challenged about this very point that the Trust were still in the same position as that stated in your link. Quote ‘The Angling Trust is sitting on the steering group for the project and we recognise the concerns that many sea anglers have over the use of the data that will be collected. That’s why we will be providing our members with all the details of the project as it progresses allowing you to make an informed and independent decision about whether to be involved or not.’

 

If that does not prove they are sat on the fence then nothing will, further more add to the mix the appointment of Mr Salter funded by the ATA who clearly support Angling 2012 and like they say draw your own conclusions. One thing is certain by remaining on the steering group they will be held to account for their support and no amount of wriggling by them or any other group that has remained will be seen as anything other than giving support to the data collection.

 

NB The official notes from this private meeting are due to be verafied today and I can then post them.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Bob Shotter

[barry luxton]

Mr Mitchell told a meeting of IFCA sea angling reps when challenged about this very point that the Trust were still in the same position as that stated in your link. Quote ‘The Angling Trust is sitting on the steering group for the project and we recognise the concerns that many sea anglers have over the use of the data that will be collected. That’s why we will be providing our members with all the details of the project as it progresses allowing you to make an informed and independent decision about whether to be involved or not.’

 

If that does not prove they are sat on the fence then nothing will, further more add to the mix the appointment of Mr Salter funded by the ATA who clearly support Angling 2012 and like they say draw your own conclusions. One thing is certain by remaining on the steering group they will be held to account for their support and no amount of wriggling by them or any other group that has remained will be seen as anything other than giving support to the data collection.

 

NB The official notes from this private meeting are due to be verafied today and I can then post them.

 

Thought so, nothing has changed from the outset then, no 'facts' to back up your assumptions. You have been sacked and will be unable to provide info to your few members, unless you use the freedoom of info act or get it second hand.

 

Don't bother yourself with the 'official' notes that info will be released into the public domain in any event.

[Bob Shotter]

Thought so, nothing has changed from the outset then, no 'facts' to back up your assumptions. You have been sacked and will be unable to provide info to your few members, unless you use the freedoom of info act or get it second hand.

 

Don't bother yourself with the 'official' notes that info will be released into the public domain in any event.

 

It was a private meeting so no they won’t automatically appear, it's just like the CEFAS minutes but they don’t seem to have surfaced this time any suggestions why that might be Mr Luxton? Oh and for your information RSA-UK would have quit this steering group in any event there is no way I would be allowed to still sit on a group that is selling Sea Angling out.

 

Once again you drag this of thread off topic Barry if you feel you have a point then why not start a new thread. Sorry guys.

[gozzer]

I think you're being naive if you think I'm going stand idly by and allow this situation to perpetuate without trying to put my point of view across. I don't agree that the only way to legally canoe a river is to negotiate an access agreement. I think access agreements are a spurious diversion, and a scandelous waste of money during a time supposed austerity. Paddling without landowners consent is definitly not a criminal offence, and probably not even a civil offence. So the moment an angler shouts "Oi you, you're not allowed to canoe through here" then he is committing the criminal offence of verbal assault. That means he can, and should be arrested. Most canoeists are becoming increasingly clued up over this.

 

I should not have to be pointing this out to anglers. The Angling Trust should be doing that.

 

One thing I don't understand about your (and the BCUs) stance, is if you are so confident of the legalities of access, no one (that I know of) has ever contested it in court. To hang around and wait for someone to take a canoeist to court, seems a waste of time and weakens any argument.

 

So anglers have proof of a rod license on them do they? Get real John, in over 40 years of angling I've only been asked to produce a rod license once, and as it happenned I'd left it at home. It was a bailiff from the NRA (forerunners of Environment Agency) that was doing the asking. I gave him my full name and address, and promised to send him a photocopy of the license, I got a bit of a ticking off, but he was ok for me to carry on fishing. At the time I resented it, and I've never carried my rod license with me since. I dare say you're now gong tell me you carry license with you everywhere as the 'responsible thing to do'. But most anglers don't, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

How intuitive of you Andy, I keep my licence in a container with my hooks, so if I forget my licence, I can't fish anyway. During the last 15/20yrs, I have been asked to show my licence 3 or 4 times. Before that it was about a half dozen times a year. The reason for this was, back then I used to fish mainly association or club waters, and anyone with a licence or club book could ask to see anothers licence/yearbook. The reason they did was because permission to use the waters was gained after negotiations, (there's that word again), over time, and in some cases payment of not so small rents. Over the years trust built up between the landowner and the association/club. To let a few 'dick heads' ruin that trust, would affect around 10,000 other anglers, so we kept on top of things. I have seen too many waters lost to angling, by the stupid actions of a few.

 

This is England after all. If a man says he's bought a license then I would rather take him at his word, and if he's misbehaving or being anti-social then I would rather call the police and have him arrested. I'm afraid in my book, paddling down the river in a canoe does not fall into that catagory, and I've a hunch that the majority of the public would agree with me

 

I don't know what job you do Andy, but I hope it has nothing to do with law enforcement. You are either a very trusting person (much more that I), or very naive, if you just take anyones word for it, regardless of the country you're in.

 

 

It's good to hear that you agree with my stance over the barbel stocking on the Wensum and the attempts by the barbel fishermen to close down navigation on the river. The rub is that in spite of everything, they're still doing it. Angling seems unable to put its own house in order. In fact, I've got a magazine article here written by Hugh Miles 18 months after my little incident, in which he describes "shouting in incandescent rage" at a party of canoeists who where attempting to navigate the Wensum during the closed season.

 

I don't agree with the introduction of any species that is alien to the country, area, or water involved, I've said that often enough on this forum.

Angling will never put it's 'whole' house in order, there are too many groups that see their own interests as more important than any other. So while each group might keep their individual 'rooms' in order, the 'house' as a whole is a shambles.

I'm not the type of person to react with "rage" at any situation, but have let my feeling known when watercraft have cut through my line whist playing a fish, done the aquatic version of 'doughnuts' (motor boat), in my swim, during a match, grounded their craft, halfway down my swim, and often without an apology but a smile instead. These are rare occasions I admit, but it does affect your viewpoint when it happens.

As I said, I have no objections to canoe access many waters, but I do object to 'the freedom to roam', and as things stand, the only way to get more access, is though negotiations. But if your apparent stance (which seems to have changed over the course of this thread), is one of,"we don't need to negotiate, we have right on our side", and an apparent unwillingness to bring a test case in court, then I can see no end to this situation.

 

John.

[Bob Shotter]

Have you ever looked into that Bob?, you don't just say 'I want a judicial review' and get it - if that was the case there would already be one happening. It would be about the Government proposals to ruin the UK Coastguard - guess what? - we can't afford one, even with volunteers like myself chipping in, we can't afford to lose so we can't take it on. Research before sillytalk.

 

Sorry I almost missed your post there Seafoods, I’m fully aware that judicial reviews cost quite a few quid and depending on the law to be looked at so the cost will vary. The twelve meter byelaw in the Southern District was going to be looked at and had that happened the cost would have been a couple of grand. This case is not that dissimilar and while we have moved on some three years the cost would be nothing like trying to review the complexities of the MCA situation.

 

Given the MCA issue has gone through an extended consultation and a transport review thing are you still intent in fighting the changes? Fair play to you if that is the case, while I might not agree with you I do both respect and admire your dedication.

[andy_youngs]

One thing I don't understand about your (and the BCUs) stance, is if you are so confident of the legalities of access, no one (that I know of) has ever contested it in court. To hang around and wait for someone to take a canoeist to court, seems a waste of time and weakens any argument.

The reality is that the only way to get a test case is for a landowner to apply for a court injunction to stop someone from paddling a particular river on a given day. Believe me John, I've done my done best to provoke an injunction. In fact, I've handed it to them on a plate. I've not only paddled through a contested stretch on the Wensum, but I actually videoed myself doing it and added a rider that I intended to do it again and to encourage others to do likewise. That video has now been on You Tube for nearly 2 years. But it seems there's no political will there on the part of either the Country Landowners Association or Fish Legal to actually challenge those actions in a court of law.

 

Both organisations seem to prefer the present situation to prevail whereby landowners and anglers stand on the riverbank shouting abuse at canoeists, and canoeists ignore them and do it anyway pretending that they're having a good time.

 

I have no objections to canoe access many waters, but I do object to 'the freedom to roam', and as things stand, the only way to get more access, is though negotiations. But if your apparent stance (which seems to have changed over the course of this thread), is one of,"we don't need to negotiate, we have right on our side", and an apparent unwillingness to bring a test case in court, then I can see no end to this situation.

I object to your objection to a freedom to roam. In case you hadn't noticed, canoeists are already doing it (albeit that they're not taking their kids out with yet for fear of verbal assault). My stance hasn't changes one jot over the course of this thread. It's not canoeists that are unwilling to bring a test case, it's anglers and landowners that are the reluctant parties. I think you would find that canoeists would welcome a test case. It would certainly be a hell of a lot cheaper than negotiating access agreements across the length and breadth of the land.

Edited January 10, 2012 by andy_youngs