Discrimination

[cg74]

1,Nonsense. The evidence suggests that at some point in the last 428,000 years the Wensum once flowed into the Rhine. But the evidence also suggests that 18,000 years ago there was a permenant land bridge between England and mainland Europe, and that sea levels were 120 metres lower than they are today. 12,000 years ago the land bridge disappeared and sea levels rose dramatically. See :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland

 

You're cherrypicking the science to try and justify your argument. I've grown up on the Wensum and seen first hand how the barbel fishermen have manipulated the truth and the law to suit their own ends, and to hell with the environmental consequences. There's only 2 things they care about : stuffing the river with as many artificial barbel introductions as possible, and keeping canoeists off the river.

 

In order for barbel to survive in the broads catchment then they would have to survive in the main river, the Yare, and run up tributaries such as the Wensum to spawn. But they can't. The Yare is too slow flowing and muddy for them to survive, and in any event, migration up the Wensum is blocked with manmade obstructions. So what we end up with is a few isolated populations of artificially stocked barbel which are unable to reproduce, and a bunch of militant barbel fishermen who are hell bent on closing down public access to the river.

 

 

2,How can there have been a Govt sanctioned introduction 1876, when prior to the 1960's barbel translocations were commonplace without Government restrictions?

 

And why do you make no reference to 1500 barbel which a previous poster has confirmed went into the river in 2000?

 

You provide NO substantiation for any of these claims, which conflict with links that I have previously posted by the owner of the Royalty Fishery. Again, you're cherry picking and basing your arguments on junk science. And if you are seriously suggesting that simply because a river has been artificially stocked with barbel for 150 years then the fish should be considered native, then you are deluding yourself. That is simply an argument for extending the 150 year rule to 200 years.

 

3,Barbel are not native to the Hampshire Avon or any of the Westerly rivers in England, and their introduction into these rivers has coincided with a progressive decline in salmon stocks.

 

4,The EA get 20 days to answer a Freedom of Information request, and I will get to the truth of this matter.

 

 

5,The point is that indigenous roach stocks are supposed to be in the river, barbel aren't. And a 10lb barbel is going to eat more salmon spawn than ten 1lb roach. And I very much doubt if your two 5lb chub are indigenous to the river either.

 

 

6,Why? I perceive that to be the case based on my first hand experience.

 

 

7,I don't blame you. If I was in your position I wouldn't want to drag them into this either.

 

I on the other hand would like to include them in this debate. Because it's relevant their job, and they're the ones that were lied to by the Environment Agency in the meeting in October last year

 

 

8,Thanks for wishing me luck, but I doubt if the Bristol Avon would be any more fruitful than the Hampshire Avon. Barbel are not native to that river either (see Wheeler and Jordan again). But they're a lot better suited to the Bristol Avon than they are the Hampshire one.

 

Andy, for my ease in answering your points I've numbered them:

 

1,I'm "cherry picking" scientific evidence; are you not doing the very same then? Do you have some definitive proof that has eluded everyone else? Hmmm, NO you don't!

As for: "migration up the Wensum is blocked with manmade obstructions." Obviously your inability to absorb what others have written has not improved. I actually stated that IMO unless habitat has been made more suitable, indigenous or not, no fish should be stocked.

Though that doesn't answer the question as to whether or not barbel are indigenous to the Wensum.

 

2,I hardly think this point warrants an answer, as you counter your own arguements.....

Take the 150 year rule - I never thought that up did I? As I've already stated: I don't agree with alien introduction into our rivers.

(another point you've failed to take onboard)

I made no mention of the stocking made in 2000 because my point was, the barbel population had thrived for 70 years, so it's a fair bet it was man's intervention that necessitated a top up stocking. Though man's destruction of rivers doesn't appear to bother you, you almost seem to prefer rivers that have suffered habitat degradation, perhaps it's because barbel are a very environmentally sensitive species?!!

 

3,So you are blaming barbel directly for the reduction in salmon numbers. All I'm going to say is excluding rivers that have been subject to habitat improvements; how many English/UK salmon rivers have greater salmon runs than 20-30 years ago?

Nothing to do with over fishing while the salmon are in saltwater and then the salmon anglers never helped matters taking their catches for the pot, though thankfully that trend seems to be less favoured.

 

4,I'm pleased for you but..... No I'll leave at that...

 

5,What, you're now questioning whether chub are indigenous to the Hampshire Avon, one word; BORING!!!

 

6,Why only "perceived" Because it's your perception/opinion and not factual!

 

7,No, I don't wish to discuss the Angling Trust because I am not a member; the why's where's and what for's is my business, end of!

 

8,You're welcome.

[cg74]

You mean the bit where I alleged your claims were spurious? I edited the spurious word out in retrospect because I didn't want to be perceived as being inflammitory. But since you bring it up, it is true. I'm not the one that's failing to substantiate my position, you are.

 

As I said: "more you"

 

Just a quick after thought try doing a web search; "Hampshire Avon 1896 barbel stocking" and see what it throws up.....

[Newt]

You two are welcome to continue this discussion via PM or on any other forum that will tolerate it.