Bruno Broughton

Sad to have to inform everyone of the death of Vic Bellars, one of the nicest anglers it has been my pleasure to meet and get to know. Vic's enthusiasm was infectuous, and he was a fine, both innovative angler to boot. The PAC would not be what it is today without his hand on the tiller during some of its most crucial years. Bruno Broughton bruno.broughton@virgin.net

Hi Saul The pictures are not really clear enough to identify the stuff, but my guess is that it is likely to be one of the stoneworts (and probably a Chara species). These are primative, algal-like plants which usually occur in alkaline waters, and they tend to indicate excellent water quality. If I'm right, you have an unusual (but not unique) situation, as the stoneworts are generally regarded as 'good' plants. However, I have seen a few lakes where they have grown invasively and have experience of control methods that work. If you can, collect a small sample, pop it in a sealed polybag, put that in a padded envelope and post it to me. I'll identify it and send you the control advice, gratis. I'll PM you with my address (and answer your email regarding the sale of my small carp!) Best regards,

So there you have it - trent.burbeler is dotty and Pater Waller is dashing. Oh dear I would like a weekly angling newspaper that publishes the news, surprisingly enough.

From what I have seen when fishing extensively in the States, there are probably already more carp anglers there than in the UK. Indeed, one senior figure in the UK tackle trade reckon there were more in New York state alone! But... they are largely drawn from the ethnic minorities, they have cheap and pretty crap tackle, they fish city waters... and the catch is destined for the pot. Those I encountered used celluloid red-n-white clip-on floats ('bobbers'), spiralling across the surface line of 50lb b.s. or more, big baitholder hooks baited with chicken guts and forked sticks for rod rests. A marketing opportunity they are not - no cash. [ 28. March 2005, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Broughton ]

I find that small rainbows are best, under (say) 1lb, but it depends on your liquidiser. Large, wild brown trout are the worst, so I normally cube anything over 6lb. Use the flanks only and discard head, guts, bones, fins and skin. Forget the pellets, which taste vile. Instead, I stiffen the mix with whole fat soya flour, a couple of eggs per pound of trout, and a generous dollop of tartare sauce. Molded into balls and tossed in seasoned flour, they deep fry really well. Yummy!

Wow, that's a big list. And the angling & fisheries content is...? Bums, I cannot seem to find it. Now it must be there somewehere. (Re-reads). Oh, it seems to be missing from the list. How very odd.

Ah, good old Roy Webster, the predator anglers' friend (not). As Budgie knows, this 'story, is based on prejudiced guesswork, false logic and bizarre interpretation. Anglers cannot catch roach... fish scales on bank... odd tyre marks - hey presto, pike bait suppliers have netted all of the fish from the Broads (and let's ban deadbaiting). Eh, evidence anyone? Otters and, to a greater extent, mink tend to be messy eaters, leaving lots of body parts behind. If you have seen the scales from 100 roach, you would believe that there has been a massacre. Unless the Broads has become overrun by furry mammals (Peter aside ), my bet is that:- 1. there has been some minor mammal predation 2. the fish have simply moved, especially as spring has now sprung. That's not to say some fish rustling hasn't taken place - I really don't know - but such would be the massive scale of such an exercise, it is inconceivable that the culprits wouldn't have been spotted, or caught. How many roach have to be removed to totally denude the boatyards of fish, and how many trips off site would it take to remove them? It would take fleets of articulated lorries to achieve this. Wroxham bridge would have buckled under the weight. And anyway, coarse fish are worth far more alive than dead, so any rustling would be for live fish for the restocking market. Hey, let's ban fish suppliers while we're at it! Now, we could start an 'illegal Albanian immigrants are eating all our fish' thread, but that would be ridiculous and designed to appeal to the basest of instincts. On second thoughts... maybe I have a career in journalism after all. [ 24. March 2005, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Broughton ]

That's the problem with rumours - most are total guff, like this one. Divide by 20, Lyn.

The first full meeting of FACT is this coming Thursday. (big pause) Quite how a new reorganisation of national angling and fisheries organisations can claim a long track record of achievement when it is so new is totally beyond me, Lee, so do enlighten us all on how this is done. For now, I think you will have to be content with observations on what it will do, hopes to do, intends to do. Sorry, Very sorry. The members organisations of the (now dead) NAA were involved in "in-fighting", were they? We all fell out. Punch-ups were a regular feature of meetings, were they? Funny, I attended almost all of the meetings, and cannot recall any of that. Some disagreements, some doing more work than other - yes - but in-fighting? Dream on... Heh, we all got on because we were mature enough to put differences to one side. I must have sleep-walked those meetings and read the minutes wrongly, obviously. No individual membership of FACT? Oh, really! I helped write the Memorandum & Articles of Association, so maybe I have an inside track here. Just maybe. Have you checked? Well, no, I thought not. As ever, Lee, you appear to want to stand outside the tent and pee in. We've all got it wrong; you are right. Perhaps you could remind us all of your experience in running national organisations again. If you REALLY believe in unity, all you have to do is to make yourself available. There's no money in it, no glory, no kudos... just lots of bloody hard (and mostly boring) work. Oh, and loads of flak. Howsabout it - help start a website; help with the response to the EA 'Angling in 2015' consultation response (which has occupied about a week of Mike Heylin's own time in the last month, and a few days of mine and several others). Oh, heh, put YOURSELF in the frame as Executive Officer. Or fund-raiser. Or... well, anything really. Except don't anticipate respect for the undeserved slagging off you started this thread with. It really does smack of a man with negativity written through him like letters in a stick of rock. BTW, FACT is not competitive with the CA which, to remind you, is NOT an angling organisation. It has its place in the wider scheme of things, and I respect that, but for all its funding and organisational skills, I cannot accredit it with any real angling achievements. Please enlighten me - what are they? Talk is really easy, as you say. Really easy. Slagging off those who try their best is facile, but it does you no credit whatsoever when you lapse into tabloid mold. Why don't YOU do something positive, just for a change, instead of throwing stones. Go on - I challege you. Or is it just the sound of breaking glass that turns you on?

Luncheon meat has always been rather over-rated, IMHO. True, the really cheap types (which melt to a pink gunge on frying) are particularly attractive to fish, and Bacon Grill is good, but in my experience sausage meat is superior. Especially rough-cut pork sausage meat. You can mix it with a suitable binder to produce a stiff paste for molding around the hook or to a bead-on-a-hair; flavours can be added easily; and blended with eggs and boiled briefly, it makes excellent, versatile and unusual boilies.

Mike That is not exactly true. The EU has commissioned a study of the impacts of prohibiting the use of lead in ammunition, angling weights and (of all things) candle wicks. I have undertaken a critique of the first draft of that research report for the European Anglers Alliance (EAA)and the European Fishing Tackle Trade Association (EFTTA). I am about to do the same with the final version. The EU Commission may or may not accept the report's finding, and they may chose to act on them (or not). If they do both accept the findings and act, this would take the form of a Directive - which would take some time to prepare. It is likely to ask member states to phase out lead in angling weights over a 3-5 year period, although manufacturers would be given at least this period to carry this out. The Directive could prohibit one or more of the following: lead weight manufacture, sale, possession or use. Of course, the UK Government could refuse to abide by any such Directive, usually by derogation (i.e. there are 'get out' clauses). As Denmark is the only other EU country with an angling lead ban - and that came in only recently - it seems probable that the UK position would be the template. It could be extended upwards, for weights of 1oz or more; it is unlikely to cover dust and micro-shot... a point I have made forceably is for their retention as non-lead alternatives are not available and are extremely difficult to manufacture. I agree that, long term, the deployment of lead into the environment is likely to be restricted or even banned, but that's a way off yet. Interestingly, several US states have prohibited lead angling weights because of apparent poisoning of loons (great northern divers to us, the large, diving birds). But that prohibition is on the sale of lead, not its use! [ 14. March 2005, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Broughton ]

Boring reply I'm afraid, but my two would be:- Richworth tutti frutti (freezer) Hutchi seafoodblend (homemade but now no longer available) Closely following would be a home-made HNV boilie incorporating Richworth blue cheese flavour, and Mainline's Grange. I agree about trout pellets, Budgie (as bait, NOT for mass baiting) - had my first carp on them in 1975. But I prefer them as a stiff paste.

Hi Lee Thanks for such an optimistic and welcome response... much appreciated. Your point about the website is well taken and helpful. FACT has a huge list of "must do" actions that all merit immediate attention, but with so much to do and virtually no funds as yet, this will have to be prioritised, inevitably. This is against the background of dealing with all the day-to-day stuff that just cannot be ignored. A website is up near the top of the list, but the very first key task is to appoint a part-time Executive Officer, who will be charged with the initial job of keeping the ship afloat while seeking sufficient funds to make all of the aspirations become reality. We have interviews in two weeks time, ahead of our next meeting, but if anyone is interested in applying there is still time! Please PM me if you need details. Sheep are not eligible... why mix business with leisure? [ 03. March 2005, 01:18 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Broughton ]

Chris I am not sure what you mean by "the Tackle Trade organisations", so I will set the record straight. The only national trade organisation for angling is - not surprisingly - the Angling Trades Association (ATA). It was formed almost 35 years ago, and I have been employed, part-time, by the ATA in various guises for 18 years... currently as Technical Director, so I think I write from an informed position. The ATA plays a full and central part in angling politics, as a members of the Moran Committee, the now defunct National Angling Alliance (NAA) and, latterly, as one of seven founder organisations that make up the Fisheries & Angling Conservation Trust(FACT). The ATA takes threats to the sport very seriously, and I have been dealing with this issue throughout my time with the Association (and before that, as the National Association of Specialist Anglers General Secretary). Indeed, I could make a very good case to illustrate how the ATA currently leads on countering anti-angling propaganda and resists campaigns by the CAA/Pisces and Peta. The ATA has no relationship with the Countryside Alliance (CA), and never has. It is not a CA member, either. True, we worked together on one project a few years ago, and jointly formulated & sponsored a pro-angling initiative (the 'Get Into Angling' campaign) in conjunction with the NFA. The now infamous 'Memorandum of Understanding' (MOU) between the NAA & the CA was an well-meaning attempt to foster jaw-jaw, not war-war, between organisations that otherwise might compete for anglers' support and press column inches. It served its purpose for a while, but it has now withered on the vine. It is defunct. That is history; FACT (which replaces the NAA and will, progressively, do the same for the Moran Committee and the Joint Angling Governing Bodies [JAGB]) has no such MOU with the CA or anyone else, and will not have one. FACT neither hides its head in the sand over anti-angling nor panics as soon as the media raises the issue. The response is mature, robust, informed, co-ordinated and proportionate. I am not going to say more than that: our ememies probably read AnglersNet, and giving away the game plan is hardly a winning strategy in a war, is it? If you - or anyone else come to that - wants to play their part in helping to protect and promote the sport of angling, all you have to do is ask. I have lots of information which I am happy to share. The more pro-angling advocates and activists, the better. [ 02. March 2005, 01:43 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Broughton ]

Fishing for food, perhaps! Angling for sport? Who knows? Angling - with rod, line and baited hook - goes back a L O N G way. To quote my AnglersNet article on the history of angling: "There is no archaeological record of when (fishing) rods were used first, although we do know that they were being employed by 2000 B.C. It was not until Roman times, however, that there were references to longer rods made into sections. The Roman writer Aelian even gave details of dressings for artificial flies used by the Macedonians when dapping for trout. "Civilised man has long represented the sport of angling in art and literature. Figures fishing are depicted in Ancient Egyptian painting, and there are references to angling in the works of Homer and the Old Testament prophets. In the fourth century B.C., Chinese writings referred to fishing with a bamboo rod, a silk line, and a hook made from a needle and baited with cooked rice." [ 27. February 2005, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Broughton ]

Ah, Peter, but so IS bird-watching ('twitching'), train-spotting, metal-detecting, shopping in the sales, collecting antiques and star-gazing. In some respects, the most satisfactory parallel between angling and other sports, pastimes & forms of recreation is with golf, believe it or not: it's you against the course. I find this analogy really good in arguments. Q: "Why do you fish if you 'throw' them back?" A: "Well, I don't; I return a fish carefully and unharmed once I have satisfied my desire to outwit and trick it into taking my bait". Q: "But why don't you eat the fish?" A: "I always mean to, but as I unhook the fish and ask it if it would rather be killed or returned, I swear it always tells me to release it. I could eat it, of course, but I choose not to because I am such a nice person. If you think that is odd, what is golf all about? Even if you wanted to, you cannot eat a golf ball". Personally, I think twitchers are bird-exploiting scum, and my thoughts on golfers are unprintable, especially as golf balls include animal-derived constituents.

If a pH this lowality most of the time. it will certainly depress the productivity of the fishery and the quantity of fish it can support. Fish will acclimate to acidic pHs, but this is quite low. Remember, the pH scale is not linear; it is logarithmic. That means that as the pH falls from 7 to 6, it is actually 10 times more acidic. Stimulating an increase in the pH is relatively easy. It is best achieved with carefully-applied chalk or limestone comopunds. For example, the deposition of a few tons of chalk (as rough-hewn chunks) on a feeder stream will cause it to gradually dissolve into the inflowing water, increasing the pH and raising the concentrations of dissolved calcium - an essential building block for many invertebrate animals. Please feel free to email me dibbly88 via the link on my website (see below) if you would like specific advice on your lake. [ 13. February 2005, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Broughton ]

Err, not really. You would almost certainly be charged under schedule 2 of the Theft Act for 'taking (or attempting to take) fish into your possesion'. If found guilty, you would have a criminal record, with all that that means. Tackle cannot be 'confiscated' (this would be illegal and also theft). It CAN be seized, for production as evidence in any court case, and if you are guilty the court could make an order for the disposal of your property used for the crime - e.g. sold for charity or destroyed. Oh, and on some estates, if you are caught fishing without permission you may get a loaded shotgun pushed up against your nose or a fair bit of roughing up. Now, why do you ask?

EFTTA is the acryonym of the European Fishing Tackle Trade Association. I am not sure how old the organisation is, but it is at least 20 years. For most of that time its main remit was to run EFTTEX, the annual, pan-European tackle trade show, which rotated (and still rotates) around European countries. To exhibit at EFFTEX, individuals & companies must be EFFTA members, and its membership is usually in the 300-400 region. EFTTEX has a proud record of always making money. Rather than blowing the surplus, EFFTA took the sound decision to plough this surplus back into the sport, on promotional initiatives and trade-related projects. The line testing is one example; half-funding (with the European Anglers Alliance) of the EAA/EFTTA lobbyist, Brussels-based Jan Kappel, is another. The background to the testing lies in European and other laws and the risk that a company could be prosecuted for selling a product that was "not what it said on the tin". The tests are adapted textile tests on dry, unknotted line. There is no sponsorship - members pay for testing and their products either pass or fail. I am pretty sure that the test is set up for nylon, co-polymer and similar lines, rather than braids. I am not surprised that failures are not publicised - the intention is that failing manufacturers will either alter production standards or re-badge lines so that, on re-submission for testing, they will pass. I cannot comment on the 'born on' labelling, other than to say that it would be almost impossible to enforce. It will appear, I am sure, as a marketing initiative, and if it gives a manufacturer a sales advantage, others will follow. Also, bear in mind that the market for tackle is a world market. Over-production, product copying and cheap production in emerging countries all threaten to undermine production standards, something with which EFTTA is having to grapple. [ 12. February 2005, 01:49 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Broughton ]

Newt If I ever make it back over the pond & fish the many US & Canadian lakes I have info. on but never go around to trying, I will search out 'scratch grain'. Is it freely available in feed stores (which is where I buy maize)? Also, have you never got into trouble with your baiting up on the grounds that you are 'chumming', which is certainly stated as illegal in some states? I always added free bait via a doppelganger/bait rocket and never had any hassle, but there is a limit to how much one can introduce from the bank.

I cannot claim any great expertise as a fish nutritionist, but... I remain sceptical about the toxicity or otherwise of dry (uncooked) maize. In theory, it will swell with water once the outer skin has been pierced, but bear in mind that:- 1. carp do not have a stomach, just what is really just one long intestinal tube. If maize swells, my guess is that it will merely shunt more partly or wholly digested food along the tube to make space. 2. on French carp lakes, if nowhere else, HUGE amounts of uncooked maize are added to the shallows/margins to attract ducks for shooting. I have seen piles the size of small haystacks, yet I do not know of carp mortalities on such lakes, some of which are managed out-of-duck-season as carp fishing lakes. 3. I certainly know for a fact that when carp swallow hard, uncooked maize, it often passes straight through the fish, unaffected by the digestive processes. That said, boiling is not a bad idea as it helps ensure that the maize is soft enough to be broken down by the digestive processes. In my experience, soaking alone does sweet f.a. on maize - I have soaked it for almost three weeks and it seemed much as it was unsoaked. Other foods/baits do not necessarily act in a similar manner. Please note that it is standard practice among European carp farmers to use grains, seeds & similar as supplementary feedstuffs tyo aid growth. The standard advice is to soak the grains/seeds first and to obtain the seeds/grains in rolled or crushed form. Newt - if your query was intended for US use, I tend to use maize as my only bait when in your country & Canada. I cook it for about 30-60 minutes by boiling in water in a covered pan (to which I add a little salt), so that it is just soft enough to pass a baiting needle through it crosswise, through the kernel of each grain. During cooking I add sugar or sweetener at about 1lb of sugar (or equivalent) to 5lb of dry maize. Sweetener is nicer as it doesn't go as sticky and syrupy as sugar. I then add neat liquid flavour to the just-covered-in-water, cooked maize. Strawberry & Scopex are great, but I have bought US imitation maple flavour ('Maplene' I think)and caught OK. Most US and Canadian supermarkets sell a huge range of cooking flavours, although I have found no need to try them (took own flavours in 1 litre bottles). I add the flavour liberally - probably amounts to 5-10ml flavour per lb of bait. This catches anywhere! [ 10. February 2005, 02:21 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Broughton ]

Elton You asked about profitability, something I should know about as most of my fisheries management asignments nowadays are for commercials or for would-be commercial fishery owners. If you set up the site properly, you have a reasonable expectation in most of lowland Britain of achieving a gross annual return of £3,500 - £5,000 per acre of water per annum from coarse angling. About 80% of that should be net income. Conversely, the gross income from trout fisheries may seem attractive, but the net income is often only about 30-50% of that of equivalent-sized coarse venues. The difference is the cost of replacing the trout that anglers are entitled to catch and remove, and illegally removed fish. About 50 or so coarse UK fisheries (my estimate) achieve income figures of £10K+/acre of water, and the ceiling from angling alone is probably about £15k/acre of water. Once you add the net profit from sales of bait, small items of tackle, and foood & drink, that may reach £20K/acre tops. Rather than spell it all out here in great detail, I suggest I send you a couple of article for AnglersNet on this subject (I have them already as PowerPoint presentations, so no real sweat). [ 07. February 2005, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Broughton ]

You're born, gain your vicehood, eventually lose your grip, then get recycled. Yep, life's bitch for us humans, too.

Lousy baits for carp? Well, I can honestly say I have never has a carp on:- a dead jack pike a peeler crab a Bulldawg a float-fished sandeel a 5lb+ live carp Mind you, I have never tried [ 03. February 2005, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: Bruno Broughton ]

Update: dusting of snow in Gnosall (6 miles west of Stafford) tonight. No way any wildlife around here has yet had thoughts of getting fin, wing or leg over... self excluded. All too busy troughing to build-up food reserves. Oh yes, self included! [ 18. January 2005, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Broughton ]