PatrickALeigh
-
Posts
32 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by PatrickALeigh
-
-
Patrick I think you will find why a lot are anti this sort of thing is because the opposite seems true! ie "because an angler doesn't wear a logo or promote a product he cant possibly be right".......................................
Personal opinion should be based on personal experience and as such there is obviously room for difference but it has been quite plain to me that most sensible people who have actually experienced the same things will draw the same conclusions.
I am quite intrigued by your particular motivation though (please I'm being quite serious here and not trying to score points) why if your not paid by Pallatrax/part of them etc etc why do you monitor any mention of them on the internet and then leap so (I thought a bit OTT and it certainly came across to me "zealously") on any negative opinions of the company/product?
I would have been a little less suspicious/surprised/intrigued if you had simply been a regular contributor just offering an alternative view to Anderoos comments.
That statement does not apply to my train of thought at all Budgie.... opinions are truely personal... if someone says X is brilliant I've been doing it for years and he catches fish... then X is brilliant... I may think something else is just as effective or better... again, Opinions are opinions - logo, no logo, sponsored not sponsored!
As mentioned above, I help them with their website as the owners are close friends of mine and am constantly using analytical tools for search engine placement, key words etc to help them promote their website. Again, your opinion was that I was OTT/Over zealous.... my opinion was my own and at the end of day, so was Anderoos .... I just bit as it was reflecting on a close friends company.
Back to the thread... are your leads shiney or coated?
-
Reading between the lines above, I get the impression you're possibly his last, too
I don't know what the Pallatrax patent covers. I had a quick look on their site, but couldn't find the patent number to enter into the IPO website and couldn't be bothered to look any further, as tackle manufacture is not something that interests me.
Seems that selling stones as fishing weights is something others are not allowed to do, however:
Firstly, I would like to make it clear, these posts are the opinions of myself and are not a company posting by Pallatrax. I am not paid by them, I have no financial gain from their products. Yes, I assist them with their website and other things, all free of charge for a friend. Am I not allowed an opinion due to the fact that when I go fishing I wear a logo on my shirt or jacket? or does doing so instantly declare any opinion or thought I have unworthy?
Elton, reading between the lines you got 2+2 = 5....... My reason for being interested in that link was that it is was a great example (again) of the irony of some of the content of this post. Some people have the opinion that stone weights are a gimmick, some think because an angler uses them and associated with that company is peddling crap to new anglers. The irony lies within the fact that there are endless people who make their own stone weights either for private use or small scale commercial use.
As you found in that link to barbel fishing world this was yet another example of someone also thinking they are a good idea to make and use and many others offering methods of doing so. I merely pointed out that the stonze are patented and as such before he spent money on development and marketing etc it would be prudent for him to get it checked out.
I personally DO NOT know the limits to which the patents owned by Pallatrax apply as this is a matter for the owners of that company alone.
As stated earlier, this thread is full of individual opinions and mine, following use of the product is that they are a good weight and they certainly don't catch me any less fish when using them. Others may beg to differ and not see the need. The original post at the beginning of this thread related to the use of weights and having a stealthy option.
That stealthy option could be sand coated leads, dull leads, dung leads, weed coated leads etc.... A myriad of leads are around that have been developed to look like something other than what they actually are i.e a lead ... why have the manufacturers done this? to hide the lead... because SOME people think it helps, some know it helps and yet, as has been proven by some posters on this thread SOME think it is a crappy idea and makes no difference at all. Great 3 opinions at least.. who is right?
Answer: they all are... opinions are individual thoughts and as such I would argue as would others I am right and others would say I'm wrong... however, it seems because an angler wears a logo and promotes a product he will never be right...
I think I made a shorter reference to the above ealrier in this thread "opinions are like Arseholes, everyones got one"...
Again, this opinion is brought to you by Me and me alone....
-
A post from elsewhere on the www about my introduction to 'weir' weed:
I remember my first ever days fishing for roach with silkweed and the introduction to it. I was about 10 at the time and we used to visit a small weir off the river Ouse in Cambs on my parents boat. The brook in question was stuffed with fish and chub were the main species myself and dad would fish for and took some cracking fish on a variety of methods. Then one day on arriving there was an old chap fishing into the weirpool itself and as I approached him he was just landing a nice roach of about 1lb. With the big roach glistening in the early morning sunlight I dropped my tackle at the boat and walked hastily down to see him.
As I approached he was, what appeared to me, trying to get his hook of the weir from a tangle and I thought to myself he's got caught up trying to cast too close to the weir. However, as I sat and watched it soon dawned on me he was doing it on purpose as he was repeatedly dragging his tackle up the weir face and eventually he snagged a largish piece of weed and with no further though it was soon re-cast into the foaming water at the base of the weir suspended beneath a large chubber style float. Within seconds the float dissapeared quicker than anybite I had ever seen before and he struck and was soon netting another roach of similar size to the first. I sat mouth open and totally silent for the next half an hour watching this guy take fish after fish. Eventually, he noticed me sitting behind him and called me over.
This 'old guy' then handed me his rod and talked me through what he was doing. My first few attempts at dragging the rig up the weir face resulted in nothing attaching itself to the hook and then I eventually 'snagged up' the hook and proceeded to pull off a piece of 'weir weed' as he called it that was about 5-6" long and an inch in diameter. I swung the tackle towards me and was just about to pull some bits of weed off 'as there was no way a piece that big would work' when he quickly uttered "don't touch it! that willl do".. He then went onto explain that touching it made a big difference and was not good and even that size it would get attacked if not taken whole by a chub and the hook-up would come further down the trot through after lots of bites from fish attacking the clump..
Without further questioning I cast out and within seconds the float was darting under and then bobbing back up, all the while the old chap was saying, wait, wait, wait and then when it shot under about 15 foot from the weir face he shouted strike, I did and was soon connected to a fish. Minutes later I'm admiring a nice plump roach of about 12oz.
He then went through his reasoning for not touching the stuff and from that day on I have spent many many days fishing 'weir weed' for roach in many many places and have caught every time and it has accounted for roach, chub, barbel, carp and dace..
I never knew the chaps name and never saw him again in the many visits we made there in the following years but I will never forget that 'old guy' and he is always there in my thoughts the first cast with the weed whenever I try it some 30 years later.. Whereever you are old guy.. Thank you.
-
Bit of a ding dong on this thread eh!
Anyone interested in making their own Stone weights take a look at the guide written by new forumite Grazy here:
Thanks for the link, most useful and I don't mean the guide on how to make them either
-
Patrick, as you've mentioned my name please post a link to what I posted. Thanks.
As you've asked, here it is below: Please note, that this has only been posted as a direct response to this post and for no other reason. I've had my 'last word' previously...
It's not often I disagree with Andrew. I do here, however.Firstly, as he states in his article, Martin James has MS. This means that he has trouble using his hands, and he also suffers from extreme exhaustion. Any help he can get, such as an easy way to make cheesepaste, is therefore a real boon. Thus I feel he's totally justified in recommending such products.
Secondly, I don't go as far as Andrew in detesting references to commercial products in articles. It certainly wouldn't stop me reading a magazine. In fact, I often learn something of value from such recommendations. Where I do agree with Andrew though is if there's continual references to the writer's sponsors, especially if it breaks the continuity of the article. This has become more and more prevalent. But such writers don't seem to realise that it's counterproductive. This is because so many readers ignore everything that author writes about any product whatsoever!
I've never said that the placement does not dumb down and affect the impact... I've just stated it happens, everywhere and anywhere.. it's a commercial requirement of ALL industries where money is spent on product and advertising and placement rules.
Yes, it is unfortunate, but it's the way of the world and happens.
I personally fell out of love with fishing for carp as a main species back in 2001 after many happy years doing so due to the new element in the sport as Andrew refers in his cemex forum post. BUT, that is not what I was replying too.
This will go round in circles.. agree to disagree.
Tight lines
Andrew, just to give you a little info, my favourite baits of all time and ones I still use a lot today are silkweed and elderberries when roach fishing..... bet you were not expecting that
... peace and out -
Any chance you could answer the advertising question I asked earlier please? That would help clarify things
I haven't used any of your gear I'm afraid, and the sad thing is it's because it's been shoved down my throat so much! Not just your gear either, this is not a weird pathalogical hatred of one tackle company! I buy gear on the strength of personal recommendations from people I trust and from personally judging things to be suitable for my fishing - the first step of which always used to be browsing adverts in magazines.
We'll have to disagree about the stonze but again I'd like to point out that for me this particular weight falls into the same category as thousands of other bits of tackle sold by every tackle company out there. That's your business and I understand that, and of course you want to market it, but I am at the other end of the spectrum where I just want new anglers to get good, solid, useful advice, which incidentally does include (unbiased) tackle and bait recommendations!
Andrew
Andrew,
I answered your advertising question in post #30 ...copied below to save you scrolling back up the page.
Of course publishers will give more column inches to those companies who pay for adverts than those that don't.... it's the way of this capitalist and commercial world we live in... you spend £1500 on an advert and you'll get space... magazine publishers are not charities
Why the cut and paste from FM? .... I've said the same thing on here... I'm not saying placement does not go on, I'm not saying that those who advertise don't get more column inches, yes, magazines will fail (and 3 have in the last 12 months) due to dropping advertising revenue, they needed to appease the advertisers as in all forms of advertising media.
Out of context or swap the name? not out of context at all my friend, your very naive or in denial with your problem. Post#17 on here starts with "Pallatrax irritate me more than the rest" ... your issue is the highlighted by the fact that other members (post#12) of this board highlight your issue, not by using ANY other name, but the brand name Pallatrax. Likewise, this was also highlighted previously on this forum by Steve Burke on another thread... or shall we go to the post by Clint Walker responding to the bashing of another company and young angler concerned... Clint responded to the thread with his own thoughts and entirely about the thread in question without brand mentions. And your reply "That post was brought to you by Pallatrax" ... tongue in cheek? could have been, but even so it just highlights an irrational and un-healthy disposition you have to the brand.
I get it, you don't like Pallatrax, you don't like product placement and you don't like Stonze... and I deny nothing about what brings you to your choice/opinion.... as Budgie said above, had you used a generic term of product placement in your responses rather than singling out a brand then I would have had no need to reply after our marketing software located the Pallatrax name. As stated from the off, this was a right to reply to use of the brand name alone.
John (Gozzer),
Yes, a stone, either with a hole in or a swivel attached. Yes, been in use for centuries as a fishing weight ..(longer than lead)
, yes, people buy them, some don't have the opportunity/time/equipment to make their own or feel the need, like many thnigs in life.Wooden rod rests ... I believe things like that are quite common already. They grown on trees you know
Swan Mussel shell weights ... already been done by many anglers... there are even ones that look like twigs too now. (not swan mussel shells looking like twigs, but weights that do )
Have not see anybody marketing reeds as floats, but I personally have used them to cover the hooklength when stalking carp many years agao and I'm sure I'm not alone in that nor the first to come up with the idea.
Not many 'firsts' left out there, and we don't proclaim to be.. Perhaps Andrews long indicators are going to be the new product for 2011/12
Tight lines
-
Well hello there Mr Leigh good to see you on the forums again funnily enough I was only talking about you the other night with Rob Axeman Fryer.
The offer of fishing up here remains open
Cheers
Alan
Mr Roe,
Good to hear your still about too. Are you still on the Gauloise?
Indeed, we must meet up for a fish up your way this year... perhaps we could make it an article, let me know your clothes size and I'll sort out a shirt, jacket and hat totally branded to the max to achieve full impact
... (joke!)I'll drop you a PM soon with some free dates and maybe hit a river before close season?
ATB
Paddy
-
Budgie,
You are correct, the term I used "I or other anglers" was not meant as maybe it's percieved.... It was purely meaning any angler could do the same with a stone at that distance as anyone with a lead could do... I am certainly not someone who is akin to thinking I am better than others... I just enjoy catching fish... big ones if I can!
No more from me.. as the saying goes "opinions are like ****holes, everyones got one"
... let's just say, we're all right Tight lines
-
I really don't think you've understood my points then Patrick, or you're deliberately misunderstanding me.
Not at all Andrew... I do understand your frustration at not getting what YOU want to see in a magazine but when you post items such as below, how should one respond? Yes, product placement has upset you, but we offend no more than many others and your posts in bold do refer to a haterd/aversion/dislike of which I was finally replying too.
“It was looking promising until the 3rd para of the winter chub article. Once Pallatrax get casually dropped into it I'm afraid that's it for me”
“Well you know what I'm like, I have to put a magazine down if I see the word Pallatrax so this was never meant for me I suspect “
Pallatrax MD Simon Pomeroy has also agreed a sponsorship deal for 2 LAC members to become part of the Pallatrax team in exchange for catch reports submitted to a variety of angling media.
“
”“and I have developed such an aversion to the brand that I could now never actually buy anything made by them. Kind of the wrong result from their point of view, I'd have thought! Even Tony Miles (how could you? ) name-drops Pallatrax.”
One thing though before I depart, have you ever actually used any of the product to form your opinion?... becasue surely, an opinion on a product can only be judged by a user of said items and not by thought alone.. is that not the case... magazine reviews being slated for being sent gear but not testing it yet giving it a good review? associated anglers opinions MUST be biased becasue they are perceived as being unable to review/use/recommend products without being biased?
In fact you have answerd the question already and I quote "For the 'spooky carp' I mentioned I was deliberately vague, because in my opinion it's impossible to say what lead, rig, bait, or anything else is most suitable until you are faced with a real and unique situation. Even then, it might take several attempts to get it working right."
.... exactly my point, you say the product is pointless, but it is impossible for you to say this as you've not used them in ANY given situation.... and we say, we've given them many unique situations in testing and we get it right
Andrew, keep enjoying your fishing and I hope you catch many a nice fish along the way
-
It wasn't my favourite Patrick!
My PM inbox is constantly inundated with fan mail, I can barely manage it
No, I just googled your name.It's an interesting thing this advertising revenue. Am I to take it that companies pay magazines for their sponsered writers to submit articles? In the same way the company would buy advertising space? Genuine question.
EDIT: I forgot to say, it seems that the people who tolerate the product placement and constant plugging do literally 'tolerate' it. So if people like me stop buing the mags and people like them just skim over the obvious plugging, who benefits?
Now, if a writer who WASN'T sponsered by Pallatrax (or whoever) sung the praises of some of your gear in an article, I'd be interested! Wouldn't that be better all round?
I'm sure it was'nt your favourite
Of course publishers will give more column inches to those companies who pay for adverts than those that don't.... it's the way of this capitalist and commercial world we live in... you spend £1500 or an advert and you'll get space... magazine publishers are not charities
Who benefits? 5% stop buying the mags, 15% tolerate the plugging and 80% read it front to back, adverts, plugs and product placement included and then buy product.... It's called marketing.... who benefits.... the adveritser, people buy his product.... the publisher - people still buy the mag and the advertiser continues to place add spend... who loses.... nobody really, personal choice and all that come into play at that point.
Non Pallatrax sponsered articles mentioning the product... blimey, we've got so many that might take a while
... seriously though, I'll dig some out for you... there are lots too Tight Lines
-
Pat your reply makes it look like you've missed Anderoos point and I'm sure you haven't!
Nothing to do with a dislike of any set company,nothing to do with the products being good or bad ,helping to catch fish or not. Simply a dislike of being taken for a mug (ie paying to read an advert for one!) in several ways!
Also despite this being a fairly common grievance among many anglers he has expressed his views with a slight tongue in cheek/degree of humour and no personal attacks.
Several "off duty" writers agree with him and even though "guilty as charged" admit its simply the economics of being a modern day "professional"/"full time" angling journo.
So instead of trying to just force feed us more of the hype (which is what many are objecting to in the first place) cant you give a better reply? or are you going to just use the "this is the first and last time I will discuss/reply to a thread concerning Pallatrax with you on this forum" clause.Other than Ive seen you've posted on the new FM I don't know who you are but judging by your defence presume you've some involvement with Pallatrax?
Budgie,
It's Patrick or Paddy please... Pats come from cows backsides and my mother is not a cow
Nope, I think even Andrew will admit that his previous postings smack more of a hatred towards Pallatrax in general, and this and the previous posts is what I was referring too. I have not missed his point about 'being taken for a mug' as you put it by what he dislikes in the mags.. however, as I've explained, it is the nature of the beast these days.. read Graham Marsdens post.. sums it up in 5 or 6 lines.
I've made no personal attacks, I've responded as a right to reply as he mentions a company I am now involved with. I can tell you, and this is straight up, you may see it as all hype, however, my involvement is only recent but my belief in the product is not. Long before any close tie in with the business I began using Stonze for very heavily fished Barbel, 3, 4 or 5 fish a season was a result on this particular section..... a switch to the Pallatrax gear - Not given but paid for - saw me land every fish in the section more than once in the space of 3 months - I was, as they say, hooked! ... not hype, not plugging, Fact!
I think you'll find that due to the delay in my postings being submitted by a moderator you may have missed some points I've made...
I'm not upset, un-happy.... just answering as I have the right to do so.... unlike many magazines
-
.....I also make no apologies for saying that stonze are pointless. Normal leads don't scare fish, they are a consistent size and density and cast better, and are cheaper......
Let's work through that shall we.
No need to apologise, your opinion... all be it a wrong one
Normal leads don't scare fish? .... are you sure, totally back that up... what about the spooky carp you referred to earlier... why the need for subtle colours (leads, rigs, tubing etc.. I assume that was what you were referring to that needed to be subtle?) in clear water.... Ever fished for heavilly pressured barbel, low density stocked sections of river and watched them approach a rig and lead?
Consistent size? what the chuff has that got to do with it?.. are you telling me the gravel, stones and bottom of the lakes and rivers you fish are all perfectly formed and identical in make up? surely not? therefore, as I am sure they are not, then using something natural and not perfectly formed and un-natural to their environment COULD help get a bite from a spooky carp or barbel... one thing is for certain, they won't catch you any less!
Density.. yep, lead is quite dense... and? ... adpat other components and explore rig dynamics and the density matters not a jot in most situations..
Cast better? really? I would hazard a guess that most on here cast anywhere between 1 yard and 70 yards most of the time they fish with a lead... pretty sure that I or other anglers could drop a stone anywhere you asked in that area without issue....
Cheaper? .... not if you make your own
, nobody is forcing you to buy them.Environmentally friendly? ... You missed that bit... in these days when it seems the fashion to drop your weight when carp fishing as written by all and sundry in the carp mags and by their associated anglers, would it not be better to drop a stone rather than a lump of lead?
Absorbant? yep, can take on flavours as an added attractant to your baited rig area.
Oh, Hi Mark.... nice roach article the other week
-
EDIT: this is probably a better page to start on the topic I linked to above: http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/coarse-...isherman-3.html ... all very interesting. Reading more and more of that topic, it's a belter
It was a belter, from all sides.. probably the best reply was Graham Marsdens, I've copied it below...his finishing line is very apt!
Tight Lines
So the ideal fishing magazine is one that:
has few if any adverts
no products mentioned by name in the articles
reviews that tell you in no uncertain terms that a product is (if it is) total cr*p (even if it was made by a manufacturer that advertises heavily in your mag)
never publishes articles with topics that have been published previously
and has an enormous cover price to cover the lack of advertising revenue
Sounds easy enough. Anyone willing to make an investment?
Meanwhile, back in the real world........
-
Hi Patrick
I hope you don't mind but I googled you to see who you are. This was one result that was quite interesting: http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/coarse-...html#post755112
So I'm glad it's not just me
Believe it or not I'm a very relaxed kind of chap, but a few things do irritate me (yes, more than most I imagine). The advertising on here or other fishing forums doesn't bother me at all, neither do adverts in fishing magazines (I quite like browsing through them in fact). As you no doubt know it's adverts disguised as copy that I find a bit sad. I'm sorry that annoys you, but there we are.
I think my previous post was pretty clear, there's no contradiction if you read it carefully, and of course I'm not suggesting it's a good idea to dump loads of leads!
What Tony Miles does is his own concern, I'm not trying to speak for anyone else. My respect for him is due to his pioneering all-rounder specimen hunting.
The point is a simple one and I know I'm not alone in holding it - if everyone writing in magazines is employed by a tackle or bait manufacturer, new anglers are missing out on genuine, independent advice from top anglers. They are being sold things they don't need. To be honest I think the blame lies with editors rather than tackle/bait companies. I just often think, 'if I was a new angler now reading this, I would assume this specific weight, or bait, or rig is the key to it all' and it never is. All the consistently good anglers you mention work for different companies, and were good anglers before they were sponsered, so it's pretty clear that they're successful despite what stuff they use, not because of it! Or they'd all work for the same company and the rest would go under.
I'm sorry I upset you so much! You do seem to know quite a lot about me though, I wonder how frightened I should be?
Andrew
Andrew,
I don't doubt there are others who feel the same as has been shown by your google find (or was it pointed out to you in a PM by another 'fan'?.. don't bother answering, I care not)... but they are small in number and you'll note that there are as many who know the score and not let it bother them. Likewise, there are many more who realise the commercial need and see it as a given. Is there an answer to the 'issue' ... nope, capital culture and commercial interests rule.
As for your assumption that you've annoyed me .... can't quite see where you get that from... mine is a right to reply.. your attitude does not annoy me .. the constant bemoaning of a business I am very heavily associated with does, to some degree, but I do type all this with a broad grin on my face
I won't respond to your belief that there was no contradiction in your post.. your opinion, your choice.
Again, you have not upset me "so much"! As for knowing so much about you, nope, sorry, know feck all about you other than what you have written on here. For your information, this only came to light due to some software we use for checking adwords, rankings and web presence and as such it highlighted all of your posts on here so I came for a look see and used a right to reply.
Frightened? Now, you're just being plain daft!
Good night Andrew.
-
Tee hee!
Pallatrax do irritate me more than the rest, but I won't go into why here. I only mentioned them before because they make the (pointless) stonze. All of it (the rig bits, the special bait, the camo, etc.) just serves to distract new anglers from what's actually useful and important to know, and to empty their pockets, and it just leaves me feeling a bit deflated.
A great deal is made of having little edges and clever new ways to tweak rigs or subtle new flavours of boilies so you can outfish everyone else on your lake, whereas in fact almost everyone is doing exactly the same thing, legering with a boilie on the deck and a bolt rig behind it. All the little edges and clever rigs and new irresistable bait makes no difference whatsoever 99% of the time, but it's very tempting to try to buy success!
The reason I asked about water clarity is that if the water is gin clear and you are fishing for a handful of spooky carp, it makes sense to do what you can to keep everything subtle. If the water is coloured and/or if there's a high stocking density (and the two are usually connected) you're probably better off not worrying about it.
Sorry Dean, I've gone off on another rant
If you're going somewhere with plenty of fish and with a mate who will probably lose a load of leads, I'd get the cheapest I could find and not care what they look like!Noted... in fact, to the point that it seems un-healthy bordering on the obsessive! I'd be jolly carefull you don't let it give you an ulcer!
Your reply, similar to another on here is a massive contradiction! Firstly, you slate Pallatrax (we all know the reasons why, do a search and you've mentioned it at least 15 times
) and the "pointless" stonze comment is thrown in with gay abandon due to your 'AR' obsession. However, you then state in the next paragraph that "it makes sense to do what you can to keep everything subtle (read as camo'd)" ..... what could be more subtle (read as camo'd) than a stone as a weight? A stone is a stone. A stonze is a stone weight. Same use as a lead and a lot more "subtle".......
As for suggesting that a cheap lead would be best if someone is going to lose a load of leads I find quite concerning that someone with a fondess for the environment and nature and despises the capitalist and commercial nature of the sport is condoning the dumping of a toxic weight into the water we anglers care for... where as, if they took up an earlier suggestion of making their own stone weights then they could lose as many as they like without fear for the enivronment they fish in..Yes, even a commercial money grabbing company representative says, make your own if you want to.... just don't try selling them though... they patented
One last point, directly for you Andrew. Your hero, Tony Miles, could get a bait deal with just about any company he could care to choose and probably be paid by some of them as well. For your information, it is his own choice to use Pallatrax bait and tackle and does not get paid a single penny for doing it either! Oh and if your interested, no other regular Pallatrax users are paid either.
I've sat and read your un-healthy obsession for a while and this is the first and last time I will discuss/reply to a thread concerning Pallatrax with you on this forum.... suffice to say, Pallatrax is a business, fishing magazines and the industry as a whole are commercial enterprises and 99% of the people in them are trying to earn a living.... All of the regular contributors place product, wear logos, discuss their 'sponsors' bait and tackle in their articles (granted, some more than others). If they did'nt, how can they market a product and make the business a success? I picked up a copy of TCF this week, blatant product placement through out it, even bottles being thrust towards the camera... did it put me off? Nope, it's interesting to see what other consistently good anglers use. And for the record, not a Pallatrax one amongst them!
Elton referred to capitalism and commercial needs in one of your (many) previous posts on the subject and I simply refer you to the same point.
This website and forum is 'littered' with adverts and product placement and quite frankly I must say that the level that Elton achieves is quite amazing.... does seeing an advert for a car insurance company on a fishing website fill you with such emotional turmoil?
We get the picture, you don't like Pallatrax, you don't like the commercial aspect of fishing. Time to move on before you end up making yourself ill.
Tight lines
Paddy
-
Small point of order for interest, John Wilson is not Martin Bowlers uncle, he is in fact his 2nd cousin ...
of course, there are a lot of 'cousins' in Norfolk
-
A great fish.
Taken a few months back and has just been waiting on weights and measures check on the scales...
Well done Ricky Halliday.. a cracker
-
Sometimes, they need to co-operate a little more with those who might just know more than them? Who would that be? Anglers are passionate, but they are not fishery scientists. so unless you hold a phd you can not make a valid comment from 40 years of country life especially when area specific? I give you a quote from Dr Bruno Broughton, independent fisheries consultant.
This process has got to lead somewhere and have a practical outcome. Anglers need to help collect hard evidence of specific problems affecting fish stocks. That evidence then needs to be investigated seriously and unbiasedly. They are and I believe after last weeks meeting, it is
Referring to your evidence - it's highly unlikely that otter populations present in the 80's will still be around in 2000 if there isI actually referred to Otters present in the mid 80's and more introductions took place into those areas.. not required and most certainly would have led to welfare issues for the existing creatures as they look to gain territory - as you said - insufficient food resource, road kill, indirect poisoning with heavy metals etc. Also why would they lie about numbers? same reason they lied about contacting fisheries and angling clubs prior to release.. because they had no concerns for anything other than the otterThe more they have the better they can demonstrate their success. Also, who is breeding all these otters?
The thing is, anglers are barking on about this, but I don't think there is any evidence to say that otters are harming fish stocks. We bark when it is big fish, but in terms of a healthy fishery, loads of big fish does not indicate a healthy fishery. What we are barking about is that we don'ty get the opportunity to catch big fish. That's not really a good reason environmentally speaking.no evidence? you're having a laugh surely?
Generally, I would say that fish stocks are higher now than they have been in years. Fish stocks are often reported (by anglers) as being in decline, but when there is an EA fish survey they find loads. There are exceptions of course. Many rivers ahve suffered pollution and over abstraction, and canalisation. This will ahev finsihed off far mroe rivers than any otter 'problem'. agreed, many other factors contributing to poor recruitment and stocks.. look how we got rolled over regarding cormorants, water companies not having to register releases of sewage etc... we, as anglers are constantly affected and required to roll over?
My local River Kennet has no otters. Oh yes it does! contact the Berks BAP and do some research before stating things like that Yet everyone is still ranting about the barbel stocks 'not being as they were'. However, Reading and District Angling Club forum identifies a comment by a member that he was fishing and the EA came along electrofishing. Whislt he was slightly narked, he was interested to note that three double figure barbel popped up from his swim. He had no idea that they were there - he'd had no bites.
Just because we are not catching them it does not mean they are not therea bit like the otter surveys then?. Also, just because a barbel has been found (why is it always barbel or carp?) partly devoured by an otter they are easier to catch than small fish, they will deliver a higher requirement of nutrition from the stomach and organs than chasing and eating lots of small fish, we have no idea whether it was dead or dying beforehand. It's actually highly likely. I can't recall the number of times I've seen a barbel gasping in the river, but it's a considerable number.that must be due to the water in question..In 35 years of fishing the Ouse I've never seen a gasping barbel
June 17th last year a 6lb barbel came tumbling down from upstream. I tried to catch it in my net to revive it but it was gone. I went upstream later and spoke to an angler - 'oh just the one, about 6lb' he said. Now it's highly likely that that barbel did not survive, and I would say that this happens much more often than we think, or admit to.
What I'm saying is that I think we should provide hard scientific evidence to back up our claims. Barking about big barbel, or big carp with a name does not support an argumentbig, small, named or not... it does not matter - it just identifies how passionate we are about our sport. We need to be able to say that the fishery and river or lake habitat is being harmed. You do not measure the health of a fishery by the number and size of fish one can catch.
I reinforce my previous comments - 12, 900 otters is not a sutainable number. This is 2004 figures, but assuming that they have increased by 20% (unlikely) there would be 15, 400.Great Britain is 228919 KM Sq... divide that by 50 and that gives you 4578 50km sq blocks and a male Otter uses 35KmSq as territory...so, yes, even if it was just 12,900 animals then that is quite close to carrying capacity.... then take those numbers and refine them down to actual area that is habitable to the Otter and you'll see that you end up with over population to the carrying capacity Hardly overrun by them are we?getting there and in my local area as I already posted, the BAP consider that too be the case too... but your areas OK so my comments invalid
Who has seen one?I have, on a number of occassions... but considering the very nature of the animal in question I'm sure the respondees will be very small in number... NOT due to the lack of Otters, but due to the Otter itself
-
No, 117 is not the true amount..... 117 was the figure published by the Otter Trust and is taken as gospel by those who wish to quote the number, it does not take into account releases performed by other wildlife groups either, such as the VW trust from the west country.. Natural England, WWF etc like to publish this figure though
... however, the total number released will never be truly known due to clerical errors and paperwork issues.. Oh, and not forgetting the general mis-information and research prior and during the releases. Too few sites used as survey locals at the start of the project and 20 years of assumptions and still limited research data was only ever going to give a figure in favour of the research rather than actuals....
A quick search of paperwork from 2002 will give you a brief idea of the numbers.. but again, very grainy with the 'actual' numbers..
For instance and I quote " At LEAST 99 releases into East Anglia"
I have got all the other numbers in emails and paperwork in my office as part of some research and 'fact' finding for other parties and if you are interested in it Elton then drop me an email.
Oh and before anyone starts.. I like Otters and believe they should be in the wild, however, this badly flawed project has created issues for the environment we enjoy in terms of problems for fish, other mammals, birds and the Otters themsleves...
I'll leave you with a direct quote from the 2009 otter survery of bedfordshire written by the author of the report for the local BAP (biodiversity action plan)
"As can be seen in the discussion a number of otter signs and animals were
recorded during 2008 and 2009 from areas outside the scope of this survey and
from areas where there is no obviously good habitat. It is these animals that are
of greater interest as they indicate a potential expanding population and use (or
re use?) of new areas. Vermin records for the 16th and 17th centuries indicate the
capture of otters from all over the county including areas where they were not
thought to occur in the previous surveys. Is the discovery of animals a long way
from the expected habitats an indication that the Bedfordshire population is
reaching its carrying capacity and therefore animals are having to subsist in suboptimal
habitats? If this is the case it is likely that there will be an increase in
conflicts between otters and fishermen as the animals are forced to venture
further and encounter the easy pickings that well stocked fishing lakes can
provide. This will particularly be the case in the Ouse area where fish numbers in
the river are declining"
guess what? at least 3 of the East Anglian releases were in areas that Otters already habitated... missed by the surverys, but known to be there and spotted frequently by anglers in the early 80's.... but hey, the experts new best and created competition and welfare neglect because they thought they were doing the right thing..... Sometimes, they need to co-operate a little more with those who might just know more than them?
-
Not dead and realistically the 6lb it was weighed at. The pictures I've seen show an old very fat fish. Possibly holding some serious amount of spawn which has stretched it out and that combined with the stress of capture has faded the stripes a tad. Although caught from a very clear lake as stated, that does not necessarily mean a stripey fish. If it had spent the last couple of days laying up in a weedbed it's stripes will have faded out.
Here's a pic of a big 4, very much alive and very faded in colour:
Yes, pictures are not the greatest of the 6 in the mail, but more than adequate from the mobile phone they were taken from. Independent witnesses too for the capture, weighing and pictures. A very real capture and worthy of claim if he decides too.
Bear in mind that a lot of the Cotswold water park lakes have crayfish in and I know of other big 5's from lakes in the area then it is a very real capture and well done to the person caught it. Wether or not it was caught whilst targeting pike is totally irrelevant, it was caught fair and square.
-
The rod should hopefully arrive today Stooby
Ive gone with the exact same setup so technically between us Stooby we have 4 rods.. one of us must get a tinca!
If you two guys are interested I would be more than happy to help you get a Tinca in Milton Keynes, drop me a PM if you are interested....
regards
Paddy
-
Nice fish.
Perch can spawn anywhere between late March and early May but 'normally' early April is an average. Had some at the weekend just gone and some had spawned already with signs of heavily flushed vents and empty bellies whilst otherwise were still as fat as barrels.
Here's a couple the kids and I had: ( Hope you don't mind the hat Anderoo
)
i got a wieght issue...
in Coarse Fishing
Posted · Edited by PatrickALeigh
Andrew, as can be seen, that pre-emptive 'bite' back then was followed by a smilie.... as I'd only seen one comment to refer on and kept the topic on track.... a few more appeared of late, I had a bad day, I was being supportive to friends and as with a lot of web forums it goes off on a tangent from there...
You best hold out for the Warburtons deal... as I gather from a post on this thread you don't do camo' and this is the hat colour for this season for the sponsored anglers
P.S you should see the perch that young man pictured back then had today.. I'll post one in a while!