grayson
-
Posts
99 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by grayson
-
-
Weirpools harbour everything - and do not be put off by what seem to be turbulent currents as it is often easy to fish relatively lightly in them, as the current on the bed is often very different to what you might expect. I have fished one weirpool on the Yorkshire Ouse for many years and can recall brown trout , flounder. eel, pike , barbel , perch and bream. Wonderful places to fish.
-
The EA destroyed a pit because you reported a fish ?? Or bandwagon jumping anglers doing it- I assume that's what you mean . The worst damge I have seen was done by a very well known northern club and by an Internal Drainage Board, The Club compltely vandalised a lovely chain of pits-trees ripped out, banks planed and access tracks built. It was an utter bloody disgrace and the Club (which now longer has the rights ) should hang its head in shame.IDB- put a JCB through my local trout stream- devastated it for a decade- bed ripped out ,trees removed etc. Thank God they are now having to be act more sensibly - again EA v helpful in achieving this.
-
Well if OP wants an insight into the reason the Angling Trust has so few members the litany of paranoia and conspiracy theories in this thread will provide rich pickings. Rarely have I read so many idiotic comments about the EA and conservation bodies. In my world - both game and coarse . but especially the former we work very closely with the EA. They have provided fantastic support in habitat management, stocking advice and so on. And of course we are open with them- I find the parochialism and sheer bloody mindedness of some clubs- 'we're not telling those buggers nowt' genuinely shocking.
-
i loved the canoeing chapters
Good .. ..you'll enjoy the conspiracy theory chapters too!
-
Ditto!
More here...
http://www.medlarpress.com/8140-Fishing-Bo...John-Aston.html
Of course if I was a picky bugger - which err I am, I'd point out it was the Spring Equinox amd Winter Solstice.
C.
Glad you were paying attention Chris....
-
Excuse the self publicity but Jewelled Fishes ' successor 'The Glorious Uncertainty' has now been published by Medlar Press and I hope any readers enjoy it.
-
if they have power instigated for tax reasons yes ,a rod license is a tax like the old dog licence it does nothing to show the holder has any qualification they have other than they paid a tax.
if the gov taxed breath they could and i have no doubt tin pot nazis would be checking you paid the breath tax ,if i'm offered a rod licence when out and about i dont even look at it i am not a government tax enforcer
all the EA do around here is remove course fish from the river but strangely return any trout they find ,is my rod tax not good enough to let me course fish in my own village?
the last one i met was a pompous little ****, demanding not asking to see my rod licence and was obviously **** off when he found i wasn't actually fishing ,i bet he was getting ready to show his power with some underling he had power over ,unfortunately he just flustered and hopefully crashed on the way home was trapped by the feet and died when the van caught fire.he actually assaulted me thinking back grabbing me by the shoulder as i ignored him on a couple off occasions as i walked along the bank ,after all if i am not fishing nor carrying a rod he has no authority over me ,obviasly a simpleton just saying i was fishing in these days of overwhelming power would get a conviction thats the trouble with the law today ,perhaps if i was alone on the bank with no witnesses our tin pot nazi would have gone ahead?
and yes i do have a concern far to many people have far to much power today ,especially councils ,"authorities" and other self opinionated levels of society that crave or get it for little reason other than they need it so they can consider themselves better than everyone else
you may think it strange the above from a club bailiff ,the trouble is you dont know me ,my "work" is purely for the free permit ,i am the most laid back person you will find and only the most severe studiedness (and you find stupid fairly often) breaches of rules is taken further ,most anglers are advised rather than abused to mend their ways ,i have even donated bits and bobs to anglers who cannot afford to buy their own giving them (at least on my patch) no excuse for the excuse they used in the future
most at the pond know me by name ,i havnt a clue what theirs is its of no interest to me all i do is collect numbers and advise when asked! throwing my weight about is best left to the others who crave being a bailiff for other reasons who can afford a permit if they wish but crave something else ,most i hope to keep an eye on their favourite water but i'm sure others have the power thing in mind!
Well that's all clear then; world gone mad , nazis everywhere -, world's gone mad ..(continues on page 87)
-
its the amazing power these tin pot nazis have that astonishes me ,the power of arrest for using one rod more than the draconian licence says you can ,not only that confiscation of the fishing tackle and car if their mrs had a headache the night before
Having met many EA staff over the years your offensive description shouldn't go unchallenged. Tell us . do you have a problem with EVERY official and legal provision relating to the sport?
-
'Thy rod and thy creel' by Odell Shepherd. Out of print for decades-written by an American academic on the glory of trout fishing. Quite amazing book- short but hugely thought provoking .
-
That book is one of my favourites, one that I've reread several times. There was a rumour of another from him - I hope he does another one.
I have the choice of 600 angling books and still write my own....
I'd suggest to Anderoo Peter Stone's 'Ledgering'.
Glad you enjoyed it. New book out this Summer- see Medlar Press website for details.
-
you know nothing of the law how its made and how bad laws get changed.Nor of your angling history
there good laws and bad laws (and yes the masses do have a choice in which is which),people in power historically made laws to help them and put everyone in their place firmly under it ,now the powerful could be land owners ,the church ,industry or the government ,get it or am i going to fast for you?
now you can call it breaking a law or "testing " a law ,in the main you obey the historic laws of the land (or i should say the majority do) but statute law is different a fair bit is brought in for something more than looking after the masses
mass disobedience is a great way of "testing" laws,without mass disobediance in the 50's and 60's there would be no canals for you to fish ,inland waterways deliberately destroyed canals so they didnt have to maintain them (deliberately getting them the title of unnavigable helped a lot and saved millions in maintenance) mass law breaking (mostly against inland waterways byelaws ) got great attention from the media and more voices joined in until the laws were changed people could use boats etc and the canals were saved ! still herenot getting bored yet?
now rivers ,exactly the same if laws were not broken (challenged) historically there would be few that actually contain fish never mind have angling on them and would be stinking polluted bogs,groups were formed (the ACA and others) who challenged the powerful and got things changed ,no doubt a bit of law breaking as well
Now strangely enough it was the power of the angling media and organisations who stopped rivers becoming technically covered by the right to roam rules ,and those rules were put i force by walkers who "challenged" (broke the laws in mass protests) the existing laws (again brought in by the powerful long ago)
so you see law breaking in some cases is justified ,as i said its the individual choice that he does what he wants taking into consideration the consequence's of his actions.
if laws worked then they would be considered good and everyone would heed them ,no need for police ,no need for me ,lifes not that easy though the country is controlled by lots of bad laws the good want changing and lots of good laws the bad people ignore.
laws are out there to be challenged ,if the canoeists get a greater voice then they will get what they want ,whatever anglers think.
its far harder today the rich and powerful want the law to themselves so legal aid has been cleverly taken away from most people in challenging laws ,mass groups are the only option today and our old friend "challenging" the laws by other means
i havnt by the way mentioned "fish" i'm speaking of the fairness in having rivers for all not just greedy anglers who point fingers at others
Final word from me- I practised law for almost 40 years and have fished for 50 plus. I have also read the literature of our sport - and have done so since I was a kid in the 60s. You may not like what I say but please do not accuse me of ignorance. Good luck with your crusading - you might get some more suppport if you tried to make at least a bit of sense....
-
the club instructs me to check permits ,i have no other powers other than "escorting" people off the pond ,the club gives me this power, in law i have none i can be sued for assault like anyone else
this is the main gist of "land"
"Land is defined as the surface, subsoil, airspace and anything permanently attached to the land, such as houses", rivers are not a permanent fixture ,they move along ,they can flood or dry up therefore they are not land
the law is shaky as i said and revolves around "trespass" look it up ,bikes are different they go on hard stuff called "land" where they "damage" it ,does a canoe damage a river? a barge could do hence speed limits on navigable waters.
i am asking to see the law that says a canoe cannot never ever go on an unnavigable river ,not some silly notion it cannot but the actual law ,there is none its back to shaky trespass laws
theres is a definite (almost) law that says the top speed is 70 but how could you overtake ,again its not hard and fast theres always exclusions or loopholes
if its illegal to go on an unavigable river per se why do the council not procecute the village raft race ,its rescue canoes ,the vicar the local boy scout field two or more farms upstream ,you cannot have a law for some and not others
lets get this clear if i put a canoe in my local river just what law will get me arrested? what about wild swimmers? is a wet suit a vessel ,their enclosed by it ? a dry suit? holding onto a log a life jacket ? why is it just canoes?
the basingstoke canal was navigable then it wasnt now some is how does "navigable" work? is it having water? ,barges? ,canoes? what?
very confusing if "navigable" is tidal waters how can you canoe the non tidal thames?
i think its all about money ? you can police and licence easy to get to places but you cannot with most ,call the licensable "navigable" and the parts difficult to police unnavigable and sit back and let the money come to you
Err .. i give up; we have explained the law to you. You don't like it- you are entitled not to like it of course but sadly you cannot cherrypick the laws you like and ignore the ones you don't. Money is utterly irrelevant to the issue. And how many more times - trespass not an offence- therefore not for the police to enforce !
-
exactly what i said just more elequently.
i suspect "navigable" rivers have to be maintained to remain so so making most of the rivers "non navigable" not a statement of fact but more of financial get out clause.
as to the statement elsewhere to put a canoe in a unnavigable river is nothing but illegal is ridiculous paul heiny did a complete series on canoeing from rivers sources and sportsman put a picture up of an undoubtedly unnavigable bit of river.
good series some should store their bile and watch it if it comes back on the TV ,scroll down the page to see the rivers canoed
http://www.g-vis.co.uk/acatalog/secret_rivers.html
is he in the nick despite this damming evidence ,ofcourse not its only a few greedy blinkered anglers and a few toffs that gives a crap who goes on a river
Youn misunderstand some of the points I made; canoeing on a river where you should not can potentially get you in fairly big trouble. Trespass is not illegal - it is not a crime but what is called a tort- a sort of civil crime if you like. What this means is that a landowner presented with a trespass problem is entitled to go to court and could be granted an injunction which would prohibit the trepasser from doing it again. And if they disobey - contempt of court - which is criminal and for which you can be fined or even jailed. I am aware Paul Heiny did some TV on canoeing- but so what - all it means is he either had consent or nobody could be arsed to do anything about his trespassing- if that is what he was doing. No idea what you mena by financial get out clause? Law is quite simple really - rivers are like most other types of property -just a bit damper..
-
are you talking about commercial navigability?
if no-one owns rivers who can say who goes on them ,a landowner as you know only owns the land beneath the river not the river itself otherwise the EA would have to apply for permission to go along it and i know from experience they do not ,is the EA above the law ,is there a law at all or just a notion you cannot ,as they say in america about personal taxation "show me the law"
we live in a jurisdiction which is roughly every thing is legal unless its stated as not legal ,show me the law in writing that say i chesters1 cannot canoe 5 miles upstream until i run out of water depth and turn back
obviously Paul Heiney had little trouble as i did in his escapades
The law is as I stated it; if you doubt me go and see a solicitor. Navigability means just that- it is not confined to big boats or little ones but is a classification of the river.All tidal rivers are navigable as of right.But it is not illegal in a criminal sense to canoe where you should not. It is trespass but that is not a criminal matter- it gives the landowner rights to remove you but unless you are doing something bad like poaching or attempting to nick stuff it is not illegal. The Agency have stautory rights to enable them to carry out their functions. There is not a law re canoeing in the sense that we have a big book of laws covering everything- in the UK we have statute law- written down- Acts of Parliament and Regs made under them and common law - not codified in the same way as Acts are but part of the law and developed by the courts over the years. Buy a law book if this stuff interests you- you might learn something useful
-
Strangely the local vicar used to rent canoes to use on the tiver ,they are still at the vicarage but the river was deemed "unnavigable" long ago the village idiots strangely forget that in their byelaws ,the "unnavigable" bit is to deter outsider canoes UNLESS their needed to look after the raft racers ,strange the rules dont apply fairly across the board but then its the same bending of rules some anglers use to get their own points across
as i said i have nothing to do with canoeists but i am sure if peta got some sort of river ban on angling canoeists would help us fight as users of rivers and i cannot fathom why anglers cannot support them
you only get the right to fish on a river (actually you get the right to stand on somones land to do it) you dont get the right to stop others enjoying it in their way ,if you think your more entitled to because you pay a license fee simply petitio the government to issue a paid for canoe licence ,trouble is if its enabled your wouldnt have anything to bitch about
i think in some theres a dangerous "our river" coming over
thank goodness times are changing when not so long ago vast landowners had people with police powers to arrest anglers ,anglers do not own rivers nor do land owners therefore we have no rights to stop anyone using them ,if canoeists dont go onto private land your objections you use fall apart all the time you object to other users the more you provide the rope to hang yourself ,if you respected canoeists the more they would respect you ,there will be idiots on both sides spoiling it for the majority there always is
A few points to clarify- in England and Wales you can canoe on rivers which are designated as navigable; relatively few are and most navigable water is on big wide rivers of little interest to canoeists. There is no legal right to canoe anywhere other than navigable water except if you own the river (ie you are a riparian owner) or you have obtained the consent of the landowner. Which may be a parish council of course- but parish councils have no legal power to make bylaws on waters in their area. What they can do is impose rules in their capacity as landowner- if relevant .
I do not like anybody claiming to fish or canoe as of right on other people's property. I have no issue with either group if they have consent and behave properly. I have no time at all for some canoeists- and a few fisherman actually -who have some bonkers notion of being freemen and only obeying their even more bonkers take on common law. Which bears little resemblance to the law I studied at University...
-
My fishing mate is looking for a 10' trotting rod - for grayling and chub on small and very overgrown streams. Needs to be 'quality'- nice cork handle etc. Am out of touch on most coarse fishing these days(too much fly fishing)- any suggestions please ?
-
Bloody hell all that malarky over bobbins for tow or three sessions
I reckon stocking still waters with barbel and chub would be a good thing. It would keep the carpers seeking the barb's away from the rivers and chub are known to do very well in still waters and grow larger than in the river systems.
I've never actually been fishing for barbel in still waters but if they thrive and keep condition (as they seem to according to people who catch them) I can't see a problem.
It would be a good thing if your view on fishing was diametrically opposed to mine. Chuck in some sturgeon and burbot too why not ? Barbel live in rivers - full stop.
-
Errmm..if I won the lottery I would possibly be more focussed on how to jump the queue for a Ferrari 458 than buying a match rod. And I think I would not be lookiung for too many all round rods but rather a rod for every occasion . But for what it's worth I am delighted with my 15' Harrison GTi float - bit of a quantum leap from the 12' 1980 something vintage Shakespeare Omni it replaced . But horses for courses- the Omni is still a peach for small river grayling fishing.
-
It must be because I am old fart but sorry I just giggle at the idea of some bloke trying to catch a carp from a windy gravel pit being sponsored. My idea of sponsorship is a Grand Prix car sponsored by Martini or Boss , not some baldy bloke wearing a free jacket saying ' Brian's brilliant baits' .
-
And unless it apeared in the letters page whats the difference then?
The difference should be obvious- jouranlists are people whose job is to write;contributors are people who are not trained writers. I expect high standards of writing from journalists(and I am often disappointed) but I hope for such standards from contributors.
-
I don't think it was a journalist but a contributor. But to be fair the important ability journalists should have is the ability to write; obviously knowledge of subject is useful- or at least access to it- but nothing is more excruciating to read than the mangled cliche ridden dross which some expert anglers inflict upon their readership. And no names need to be mentioned ...
-
I thought that was the point
The general public see anglers as nutty/esoteric/eccentric/out to lunch
Most anglers see Waterlog readers as especially nutty/esoteric/eccentric/out to lunch
Waterlog readers see Waterlog contributers as extremely nutty/esoteric/eccentric/out to lunch
Waterlog contributers see the Waterlog cruciverbalist as cataclysmically nutty/esoteric/eccentric/out to lunch
Hmm - I so much wanted to like Waterlog , beautifully produced and a quality publication all round.Shame about the writing , too much of which is not so much esoteric as Chris Yates parody . Chris can do whimsy but few others can.I cancelled my subscription as I found it near unreadable.
-
I am more of a game angler and as said above there is very little product placement in game press- although still far too much advertorial about best 14' salmon rod etc. I read AT and the gratuitous namedropping of brands is embarrassing. I recently read a piece about 'simple tactics for winter chub' and lost the will to live after reading of a ridiculously complicated set up awash with Fox, Korum etc references and referring to insanely expensive baits.God knows how I catch chub on cheesepaste using Maxima...and I do seem to catch my share, honest. But the worst is the picture of some glum looking bloke holding the inveitable fat carp and reporting that it fell to the new xyz34 mk2 bait he was 'fieldtesting '. Which translates as ' going fishing with some free bait my mate knocked up in the hope of flogging it to the gullible angling public'
-
Rarely buy the Mail but did so yesterday. Read so -so piece on fishing the River Test for grayling and roach (latter referred to as 'redfins'- copyright Mr Crabtree 1954) . The river was referred to as being a spate river.... There was me thinking it was a chalk stream . So this revelation makes my home rivers - Swale , Ure etc exactly what I wonder?
Waterlog
in Coarse Fishing
Posted
Yup - even got an article in it this month too- I am guilty of the piece called Force Majeure.