coxie

This is the Twyford and District site: http://www.tdfc.btinternet.co.uk/

By the way, I meant to say I agree with Lee, Cranfield and DCMA, good posts

Until fairly recently fox-hunting was a legal pursuit and the general public knew about it but didn't concern themselves with it. Then the antis decided to explain to the general public how cruel and barbaric it was. They forgot to mention how cruel and barbaric the alternative means of control would be, but they convinced the general public and , more importantly, the politicians, that fox-hunting should be banned and it will be. I don't fox-hunt, have never wanted to, but I fish and I know how difficult it is to explain that fishing is not cruel. But that is something we are all going to have to get used to doing. Does anyone on this forum honestly believe that the antis will not turn on fishing, once fox-hunting is gone? I fear that the vast majority of anglers have the attitude that there are too many of us for a fishing ban to become reality. Even on this thread the figure of six million has been quoted. On the "Number of active anglers in the UK today" thread 7 million is the number. Get real! Wake up guys! There were just over a million licences purchased last year. That's the number! Not six, not seven, but one million. There are sea anglers, of course, I have no idea of their numbers, but a lot will also coarse fish and would therefore figure in the licence numbers. There are more who do not purchase a licence, but don't rely on them in a fight!! Will the CA support us when fox-hunting has been banned? I don't know. Are they using us to swell their numbers? Probably. We may find extra numbers helpful too, in a few years time!

Fantastic bait when in season. As some of the previous posters have mentioned, fish it together with hemp and it will catch roach, dace, chub and barbel and carp if they are present. Again, as previously mentioned, if you can fish under an elder bush you will almost certainly catch. Very good on the Kennet and the Thames. Also, it seems to work really well in hot, bright conditions, not the best conditions for fishing generally.

A friend of mine qualified some years ago. He told me that after he had qualified he was sent details of the final in the post.

The whole point of starting this thread way back when was as a warning, having just heard that the government were going to ignore the rcommendations of the House of Lords and go for a complete hunting ban. I seem to remember, right at the very beginning when the League Against Cruel Sports first came into being, the government of the day assuring fox-hunters that their sport was legal and that they were free to continue doing it. Things change don't they. People like Barbless are so certain that our vast numbers and the huge amounts of money generated by us will keep us safe. I hear people talk of 4 million anglers. How come the income from rod licences is only £9 million (taken from EA web site) , that's 450,000 licences? If people can't be bothered to buy a licence they sure won't be bothered to fight for their sport. I agree with Lee(TrentBarbeler). By the time they get round to banning fishing, and they will try, we will be alone. Barbless, I neither "hunt" or stand for "hunting" but I certainly don't know that fishing will never be banned. Oh, and try telling the people who will be losing their jobs and livelihoods when hunting goes that fox-hunting is not an industry! [ 30 July 2002, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: coxie ]

I too was given Mr. Crabtree when I was quite young. Walked miles of river bank looking for a swim like the one depicted in the first "story" Fishing in Winter. A huge near bank eddy full of chub, roach and bream. Never found it! Then I started to go with some school friends who fished Watford's River Gade in the summer evenings. A roach was a great prize, as were perch. We mostly caught gudgeon and minnows. We graduated to the Rickmansworth Aquadrome, but, without guidance from adults, didn't have too many red-letter days. The best thing I did was to join a club and watch and learn. Still doing that!

Thames at Maidenhead used to be good, just below Boulter's Lock Restaurant. The fishing is a bit uncomfortable as you have to fish on the ledge that runs alongside the road. There are islands spread along the section. I seem to remember the point of the first island down from Boulters was a bit of a hot-spot. Another area is the Sounding Arch, the Brunel bridge about two hundred yards down-stream from Maidenhead bridge. I think both these areas are free fishing, they used to be.

For me the advantage is accuracy. Fishing a short line between pole tip and float, especially on canals or up against islands on lakes, you can fish right up against, or sometimes in, far bank features. Also, in winter particularly, you can keep everything tight. By using a pole cup to feed, you can drop loose feed or groundbait right on top of where you are fishing. Nugg, a long pole in a strong wind is a nightmare!!

Depends where you draw Mark. There are others here who will have more up-to-date info than me, but I have seen matches won with 32lb of dace. The roach are few and far between, but do show sometimes. It's true, St. Pat's is becoming known as a barbel venue, but if conditions aren't right for them, not many will be caught. Chub are more likely to win most matches there. I wouldn't go all out on the feeder, most matches there are won on the float. Apparently, it's very weedy at the moment, but if you can find a nice run through you should catch. Don't make the mistake of feeding too much too soon. Some people try to feed off the smaller fish and then the big fish don't show. Start steadily and up the feed in the latter part of the match. Obviously, if you catch chub or bream early you can all out for it. Keep an eye on the area where your feed is going in, the chub come right up under it. You will need at least twenty pounds to frame if it fishes well.

Talking of octopus, my golf swing has been likened to an octopus falling out of a tree!

Peter Waller, even match fishermen try not to catch tiny immature fish, unless it’s a winter league match or something similar and they are trying to avoid a blank. They are not worth it, they don’t weigh enough, but, sometimes you will catch them. And, surely, it’s not just matchmen who like to catch a bag of silver fish? I’ve had the odd fatality while pleasure fishing, I think they are inevitable, small fish, deeply hooked, don’t tell me I’m the only one! Handling of fish by match anglers is greatly improved. The guys that tip their fish the whole length of the net are a dying breed, I’m glad to say. I, and others, will bring to their attention better ways. Keepnets are designed now with handles on the inside with which to pull the bottom three rings through the top ring. It’s then a simple matter of sliding the fish out. Mally, brilliant story. Should happen more often. An oft ignored rule is litter in the peg. If there is litter in your peg, whether it was left by you or someone else, you will not be weighed in. Simple solution to the litter problem and one that is in most clubs’ rule books. And before you all start, matchmen, GENERALLY, are very litter conscious. Dunk, good luck with that fishery, mate. Fair play to any fishery owner who can turn down 100 peg matches at a fiver a peg! The big fish problem is just that, a problem. How should it be solved? I don’t know. I used to fish in a club that had a rule about weighing large fish, above 4lbs, immediately. It worked, but it was a small venue with only 28 pegs. The scales were never more than 14 pegs away. I used to fish in pike matches, Peter. In my experience, limited I know, there were rarely more than twenty pike caught in the whole five hour match. Weighing immediately was less of a problem. Red HillBilly, on a venue where 200lb bags are expected, MOST of the competitors would have AT LEAST two nets each. I’m a fisherman, I like match fishing. I get a bit fed up with being branded uncaring because I match fish. As I said earlier there are bad anglers in all branches of the sport. I refuse to believe that, as a matchman, I am responsible for killing more fish than the average angler. But, I know I am responsible for killing some fish. I’m glad to say not many in a season, but some. Who out there can claim to have never accidentally killed a fish?

Excellent replies by davidP and Scoobs. Can't add much except to take issue with two of Peter Wallers comments. Do you have any evidence that matches and matchmen effect fisheries in a negative way Peter? You mentioned the Trent. It was an absolutely superb venue some years back and was for several years despite the fact that there were almost daily matches held on it. Then it went off, in your opinion, because of match fishermen. Why, what did they do? The decline was sudden. After years of great fishing , suddenly the Trent became seemingly devoid of fish. Surely not overfishing! Take a venue like John Raison's Gold Valley Lakes in Aldershot. Heavily match-fished for years and just gets better and better. The other point you made was how caring pike anglers are an asset to the sport. What about the uncaring ones and there are plenty? I think you'll find that there are just as many caring match fishermen and just as many tossers in both branches of the sport. Are we above the law? NO. And take it from me, there are far more witnesses to dodgy practices in a match than there are on the average pike venue.

Just realised I've nicked Kingfisher's. I have an image I'd like to use. It's in jpeg format now. How do I re-size it to 48 x 48 pixels? Once that's done do I just e-mail it to you, Elton?

There's a surprise! Hunting with hounds not even buried and the antis have upped the ante and are after shooters. Make no mistake fishing will be next. And how hypocritical some people are! Can't you see, that to a large proportion of the general public, a fox being killed by hounds is not much different to a bird being shot out of the sky or a stag being shot in cold blood or hooks being stuck in fish. How are you going to defend our sport when you can't say, "Well, it's not as bad as hunting". And, by the way, how do you justify our sport to the huge number of people, mostly women, who think angling is cruel, but turn a blind eye to the plight of garden birds that their precious cats kill regularly! You cannot argue logically with them. They think fishing's cruel, end of story! While fox-hunting was legal we were safe, as long as shooting remains legal we are safe, but when we are the only country pursuit left, watch out!

There's a surprise! Hunting with hounds not even buried and the antis have upped the ante and are after shooters. Make no mistake fishing will be next. And how hypocritical some people are! Can't you see, that to a large proportion of the general public, a fox being killed by hounds is not much different to a bird being shot out of the sky or a stag being shot in cold blood or hooks being stuck in fish. How are you going to defend our sport when you can't say, "Well, it's not as bad as hunting". And, by the way, how do you justify our sport to the huge number of people, mostly women, who think angling is cruel, but turn a blind eye to the plight of garden birds that their precious cats kill regularly! You cannot argue logically with them. They think fishing's cruel, end of story! While fox-hunting was legal we were safe, as long as shooting remains legal we are safe, but when we are the only country pursuit left, watch out!

They're buggers those match fishermen aren't they? Why is every thread about keepnets an invitation to moan about match fishers? There are some fish fatalities during matches, I would say 99% because of deep hooking. But, if you return the fish straight away you really don't know whether they have survived or not, but your conscience is clear. And the guys who collect their dead baits after matches? How do they obtain natural deads otherwise, surely they don't catch roach and kill them for that purpose. On St Patrick's Stream we have had problems with barbel dying, they were put back too soon, went belly up and were swept downstream. In the matches, they would have been in nets and something could have been done about it, happened to me once. I don't remember any match I have attended there where a barbel died. Come on! Stop bitching. ALL sections of fishing have bad fishermen. Nets are fine if the users have half a brain, buy them big enough, stake them out, be careful when emptying them, just take care!

They're buggers those match fishermen aren't they? Why is every thread about keepnets an invitation to moan about match fishers? There are some fish fatalities during matches, I would say 99% because of deep hooking. But, if you return the fish straight away you really don't know whether they have survived or not, but your conscience is clear. And the guys who collect their dead baits after matches? How do they obtain natural deads otherwise, surely they don't catch roach and kill them for that purpose. On St Patrick's Stream we have had problems with barbel dying, they were put back too soon, went belly up and were swept downstream. In the matches, they would have been in nets and something could have been done about it, happened to me once. I don't remember any match I have attended there where a barbel died. Come on! Stop bitching. ALL sections of fishing have bad fishermen. Nets are fine if the users have half a brain, buy them big enough, stake them out, be careful when emptying them, just take care!

Talking of Dick Walker's observational skills reminded me of his book, the title of which is one of my favourite quotes, "No Need To Lie". When he wrote that book he had been there and got the t-shirt, but he told fantastical tales of huge fish he'd seen or caught. As he said, he had no need to lie! The other quote, oft used in match-fishing circles, makes me laugh every time I hear it. When someone is asked how he got on and he's had a bad day the answer comes back along these lines: "I had 6ozs of, mostly, small fish".

Just searched for Angling/fishing sites in general and stumbled across it. I suspect there was a thread that I had a particular interest in and I had to register to post a reply, can't remember.

Just searched for Angling/fishing sites in general and stumbled across it. I suspect there was a thread that I had a particular interest in and I had to register to post a reply, can't remember.

Well done on your fish, like a pike but smaller. I caught an 8lb pike on bread flake from the Rickmansworth Aquadrome years ago, hooked fair and square in the mouth, after a typical tench bite! Thought it was a huge tench at first.

Well done on your fish, like a pike but smaller. I caught an 8lb pike on bread flake from the Rickmansworth Aquadrome years ago, hooked fair and square in the mouth, after a typical tench bite! Thought it was a huge tench at first.

Miasma, That's a good question. It's something I try not to think about. But, if I had to give an answer, then I would continue fishing. I already treat anything I catch with the utmost care and would continue to do so, but, if it was proved that hooking them hurt them, I would carry on hooking them! And that, in all honesty, is why I could not argue against fox-hunting. They know the fox gets hurt and they hunt anyway, we hope the fish don't get hurt, but, I suspect, most of us would carry on anyway! My honest belief is that if fox-hunting stops, killing of foxes will not stop, they will be shot, poisoned or trapped, and all those things hurt too. I would have preferred to see hunting continue for very selfish reasons. I don't hunt, but I believe hunters should be allowed to do it if they want to, it's legal, they were not breaking laws, unlike the trespassing , violent antis. But there are other reasons. I have a pretty miserable vision of the countryside without hunting, shooting and fishing. It's a countryside devoid of wildlife, because there is no-one left to conserve it. Hunters need to make sure there is something to hunt, shooters need to make sure there is something to shoot and anglers need there to be fish in our rivers and lakes. I'm not sure who would be bothered without us.

I started this and have been away for a little while. I have just read all the posts and very interesting they are too. Any hope of getting a united front is gone if the differences of opinion aired on this subject are anything to go by. As far as I am aware, the government have abandoned talk of licensed hunts, they want a complete ban, unless the area in question would not support other methods of fox control (shooting, poisoning, trapping), as in the very desolate moorland areas where access is a problem. This will be good news for many people I'm sure, including some of you on Anglers' Net. My problem with this is, even though I have never hunted, or been shooting for that matter, I fear the consequences of a ban. The antis never seem to think of consequences. What do they think will happen to the foxes once hunting is banned? Will they live happily ever after. No they won't! They will be shot, poisoned or trapped. Much better than being torn to shreds by hounds. NOT! It's the same with fishing. Do they think there will be any fish left in the rivers if fishing is banned. Who will know? Mink. Let's release all those poor mink into the wild. Consequence? No water voles left. My girlfriend is a member of the general public. We have had several “discussions” about whether fishing is cruel or not. She can’t see how sticking a hook into a fish and dragging it fighting all the way to the bank doesn’t hurt them and I have a job explaining that. Of course, the hugely ironic thing is that she owns cats, which, routinely, torture and kill all sorts of birds and animals every week, but that’s “Nature’s way”. Don’t ever rely on the general public! Peter Waller is correct when he says that the antis' sport is being nuisances. It's more serious than that. When hunting is banned what will they do with their weekends? They will find another activity that they don't agree with and try to disrupt that. At the very least hunting keeps them off our backs. Mally's idea of punching antis in the gob is a great one, if they threw my tackle in I'd do the same, but they don't travel alone and they don't generally let you get that close. It is so easy to ruin someone's fishing from a nearby bridge or from the far-bank. And Peter Sharpe, you may think PETA are pathetic, but wait until angling is the only thing they have to concentrate on. Lee, The Trent Barbeler made so many good points. Hunting, shooting and fishing are all perfectly legal activities, which people should be free to make their own minds up about participating in. But a minority, which the real antis surely are, have whipped up such a storm over hunting that it is soon to be banned. They could do the same to us. And I look forward to people like The Dacer, who thinks that hunting with dogs is barbaric, something from the 12th century, explaining that fishing isn't cruel when the time comes to justify ourselves. I hope I'm wrong, but sadly, I can see the day when our sport is in the same position as hunting is today.