Mullet

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Hi Ken, and welcome to the snake pit. Point a, both are saying different on that point, one says permission to fish was granted, the other, no. Point b, Matt has stated continually that he caught it on rod and line full stop. c, it has been put forward as boat caught. d, failure of trust, again both say different.e, if it is that easy, i look forward when someone else close to Matt gets a sneaky line in and does the same, just to prove a point.

 

That point c} is the interesting one to me.

 

What is shore and what is boat.

 

Now would it be boat caught if I was standing in a boat that was on the hard in a boat yard?

 

What is the difference between a floating pontoon and a moored boat?

 

I always thought rightly or wrongly that a boat caught fish was one in which someone had set sail, arrived at some point and caught a fish.

 

A shore caught fish was from a beach, pier, jetty, harbour wall, bridge or in fact anything that one could simply walk to and fish.

 

Maybe I am completely thick but to me a boat tied up along side a quay which isn't going any where is no different to a floating pontoon, or is a floating pontoon regarded as a moored boat?

 

That definition is as far as I see it the most important. Some thing of a dilemma.

 

The other items are all ones of conscience for both concerned

[Targa 31]

Speaks volumes, to me, about your character. All your back peddling and attempts to ingratiate yourself on this forum doesn't wash with me. Hope I never meet you out on the water (and that means exactly what it says)

 

 

Clearly touched a nerve there ! I'm always keen to learn. Why do sailing boats start races in the middle of a channel ? I've read my Colregs (International Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea ) a number of times and it would appear that everybody has a duty of care to avoid collisions - irrespective of sail/power.

 

Anyhow a quick update on THIS thread.

 

I went down to my boat last wkend and due to the bad weather, nasty winds etc the marina was not busy. So I had a 30 mins dangle with my rod.

I used a carbonactive float rod and a WJ Young centrepin with 5lb main. Down to a 3lb hook to nylon. (ie I used as good a set-up as I could) - fsimple flake with no float/shots etc.

 

I had to put the rod down after about 10mins to resecure an annoying mooring rope when I looked around and saw the rod n reel about to go for a swim.

I played the fish for about 7-8 mins and got a glimpse - about 4/5lb at a guess. Thought about netting it and at that point the fish went under my boat like a rocket and the line grated on either the keelband or one of the outdrives and then parted, despite me putting most of the rod vertically down into the water to avoid the structure.

 

I have had lslightly larger fish from in here and the fights fall into two succinct categories :-

1) The fish dont seem to "believe" they have been hooked and after a reasonable, almost disappointing 30 second to 1 minute scrap they are netted, but thrash like mad in the net.

or

2) They fight like stink and every time you think they are about to net they get another dose of adrenaline and they go off again and so on until they are totally mullered and even then they are still tricky to land

 

I wonder how that 10lb'er fought ?

 

I had to get back home pretty sharpish and I put a couple of loaves and a packet of sliced corned beef into the bread bag I have on the pontoon (PS - thanks for the posting for the new bags - ordered some today) and give it a good shake. Looks a little like Alderney Shirvey and it did the trick there were about a dozen or so fish under the bag within 5 mins. But I had locked up and I had run out of time and I didn't really want to push my luck in the marina.

 

ps - boat still clean

[barry luxton]

I went down to my boat last wkend and due to the bad weather, nasty winds etc the marina was not busy. So I had a 30 mins dangle with my rod.

I used a carbonactive float rod and a WJ Young centrepin with 5lb main. Down to a 3lb hook to nylon. (ie I used as good a set-up as I could) - fsimple flake with no float/shots etc.

 

Good morning, any one grant permission to fish. With the amount of obstructions, any thought regarding stepping up the gear to save a hook left in the mouth, say 50lb class. snigger.

[Stinca]

No its not !

 

Unless the mullet belong to the Marina, and are then dispached and taken away.

 

Didn't any one here Scrump as a Kid? I did. now that technicley is burgrary as all the Criteria for that offence are met, But no one makes that much fuss about that, why because on the Grand scale of things it aint that much of a big deal !!!!!

 

Having entered a house without invititation you are trespassing. If you pick up any form of property belonging to the household you have shown intent and become a burglar. In this case, the angler became a trespasser when the rod and line were used. He became a poacher on the capture of the fish, whether or not his intention was for permanent removal, intent was shown. If it were a salmon in a true salmon fishery then of course he's gonna get it. But a mullet from a marina is hardly viewed with the same severity. It's a matter of principle that the fish was caught legally.

 

Scrumping usually doesn't initiate a claim for reward. The angler in question is attempting to claim a reward for a fish that was illegally caught against other anglers who capture fish fair and square. A level playing field needs to be played on in order to maintain fair competition.

 

Officially the mullet do belong to the marina. The law states that the ownership of previously wild fish is held by the property if there course has resulted by migration into either naturally landlocked waters or those created by engineering works or artifical barriers that can control migration into land locked waters. The marina would fall into either of the last two catagories.

 

In consideration of the above, an EA licence would also be required as the fish fish was caught in a non tidal zone or a water in which the level is again controlled artficiallyand permanently. According to Millichamp (author of Angler's Law) in extreme cases the confiscation of boats and tackle is possible if fishing the marina without a licence.

 

I hope this answers your question as well Mr Cranfield.

Edited August 23, 2007 by Stinca

[five bellies]

Having entered a house without invititation you are trespassing. If you pick up any form of property belonging to the household you have shown intent and become a burglar. In this case, the angler became a trespasser when the rod and line were used. He became a poacher on the capture of the fish, whether or not his intention was for permanent removal, intent was shown. If it were a salmon in a true salmon fishery then of course he's gonna get it. But a mullet from a marina is hardly viewed with the same severity. It's a matter of principle that the fish was caught legally.

 

Scrumping usually doesn't initiate a claim for reward. The angler in question is attempting to claim a reward for a fish that was illegally caught against other anglers who capture fish fair and square. A level playing field needs to be played on in order to maintain fair competition.

 

Officially the mullet do belong to the marina. The law states that the ownership of previously wild fish is held by the property if there course has resulted by migration into either naturally landlocked waters or those created by engineering works or artifical barriers that can control migration into land locked waters. The marina would fall into either of the last two catagories.

 

In consideration of the above, an EA licence would also be required as the fish fish was caught in a non tidal zone or a water in which the level is again controlled artficiallyand permanently. According to Millichamp (author of Angler's Law) in extreme cases the confiscation of boats and tackle is possible if fishing the marina without a licence.

 

I hope this answers your question as well Mr Cranfield.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im going to ghave to bow to Mr Millichamp, as far as Poaching is concerned Stinka.

 

Was a precedent qouted or is it untried law?

 

I will stick to my Scrumping analagy though as I feel it is correct in this instance

[Stinca]

Im going to ghave to bow to Mr Millichamp, as far as Poaching is concerned Stinka.

 

Was a precedent qouted or is it untried law?

 

I will stick to my Scrumping analagy though as I feel it is correct in this instance

 

Unfortunately no case study was mentioned. I suppose there are so many cases of poaching, each having their own location, fish, date etc etc that the book would become rather large. He only states the fundamentals of the law and the most common scenarios.

 

The book is on the brink of becoming obsolete as many laws have tightened since its production 10 years ago especially the acts pertaining to Lawful Entry, the EA itself, Rights of Baliffs etc. In essence the book is unsafe as the powers that be have more power. Only fishing the tidal zones seems pretty much unpoliced.

[Stoaty]

Officially the mullet do belong to the marina. The law states that the ownership of previously wild fish is held by the property if there course has resulted by migration into either naturally landlocked waters or those created by engineering works or artifical barriers that can control migration into land locked waters. The marina would fall into either of the last two catagories.

 

 

Actually I think you will find that Medway Ports would argue that it's their water in the marina and their fish in it. It's also the reason why every boat in the marina, whether or not they leave the marina, has to pay a £46 conservancy charge yearly to Medway Ports.

[five bellies]

Unfortunately no case study was mentioned. I suppose there are so many cases of poaching, each having their own location, fish, date etc etc that the book would become rather large. He only states the fundamentals of the law and the most common scenarios.

 

The book is on the brink of becoming obsolete as many laws have tightened since its production 10 years ago especially the acts pertaining to Lawful Entry, the EA itself, Rights of Baliffs etc. In essence the book is unsafe as the powers that be have more power. Only fishing the tidal zones seems pretty much unpoliced.

 

 

I used to act as a bailiff by default if you were a member you where also a bailif,on a small Trout fishery on the River Daranth

Kent, I used to go easy on the course anglers who used to have a sneaky go at the Chubb but being a brown Trout only fishery used to come down hard on the Trout poachers, the local Bobby told us it was easier to pursue them legaly as we largley stocked the Browns so owned them as opposed to the course Fish that were there naturaly.

[barry luxton]

Actually I think you will find that Medway Ports would argue that it's their water in the marina and their fish in it. It's also the reason why every boat in the marina, whether or not they leave the marina, has to pay a £46 conservancy charge yearly to Medway Ports.

 

So the next questions are, is the marina on the medway, init, or is seperate from the medway? Who owns it, or does the mpa own it, or who?

[Stinca]

The water is extracted from the Medway with permission from the EA to top up the basin. So the water originates from the river, but owing to the control gates, the water now belongs to the Marina/MPA.

 

The fish originate from the river but are artifically land locked and become the property of the Marina/MPA.

 

The land beneath the water also belongs to the Marina/MPA.

 

In fact the world belongs to the Marina/MPA

 

Originally the basins were once a creek and dug out by French and Dutch prisoners. Since the gates have been erected though I would think the mullet lose their status as tidal river fish as one would officially require an EA licence to fish for them according to Mr Millichamp.

 

Perhaps Mr Baldwin should seek to attain his mullet entry into the Coarse fishing records

 

I have Marina/MPA as I don't know whether the Marina owners are tennants or part of MPA or what.