phil hackett
-
Posts
446 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by phil hackett
-
-
We’re cynical lot us British anglers when it come to anything that isn’t real/live as a bait. Some years ago I went fishing the River Angara at Irkutsk in Siberia with a Russian friend for grayling with his tackle. The river’s massive, a good half a mile wide at Irkutsk as it leaves Lake Baikal, the flow is like nothing we’ve got in the UK.
On getting out in his boat in the flow he gets the rods out, 10 ft spinning type rods is the best way I can describe them. Then the floats, avon type, the size of a large livebait pike float, with an antenna and sight blob on the top. I smiled at these, thinking you expect a grayling to pull that thing under? The reels were Russian 6 inch centrepins. The weight was a bullet about 1 oz stopped by a swan shot either side.
Then the made up hook links, size 12 long-shank with a piece of Pink electrical tubing threaded up the shank.
He then drops the rig off the back of the boat and lets it go in the flow, within 20 seconds its 50 yards down the river and under it went, a grayling about 6 inches comes to the boat after a short fight. We caught grayling up to about 1.75 lbs for the two hours we were fishing. Taking a fish about every third or fourth trot down the river. We put no other bait in the water other than the pink tubed hooks.
He was a bit perplexed when I started to return the smaller fish shaking his head.
That night the four of us, him, me and our wives ate them cooked in dill with copious glasses of Baikal vodka and fishing tails of old. The rest were shared out amongst the neighbours in the apartment block.
My view after seeing the power of what I viewed as crude artificial bait, was don’t dismiss such baits out of hand.
I’ve since sent him several packets of artificial red maggots, rubber bloodworm and he tells me they are working well for grayling, rudd and crucian carp, as is sweetcorn which he’d never thought of using.
I also introduced him to waggler float fishing and match rods, which I took over with me and gave him when I left.
-
are artificial maggots any good for roach.
I've found them very effective for roach, dace, chub on the Ribble. And bream and tench fishing on the meres of cheshire shropshire.
For river fishing it's important to get the fish on the feed first. When you get them feeding the minnows join them and you get burst maggots, then is the time you change over to artificials. Reds I find out fish the whites.
On the meres I use them over beds of maggots and they do the business and you know there's always going to be a bait on the hook even if you've got silver fish pecking at your hookbait.
-
Went out on the river Thames today and pleased to say i didnt see anyone fishing but when we came back to the marina there was a guy carp fishing off one of the islands in the marina.
The marina in question is a large gravel pit that is connected[strangely enough] to the thames and i told the guy i thought he was fishing out of season but he said not as it was a lake.
Lots of fish come into the marina to spawn off the river so what do you think guys was he fishing out of season or not?.
He is there all the time as he has the landowners permision to put a old shack on said island and moors a couple of small boats there so it wont be difficult to bubble him if this is the case just wondering as i doubt anyone manning the EA number on the weekend.
Any thoughts guys Steve.
Simple answer is phone the local EA office, ask for the fisheries officer that cover that area to give you a ring. He'll know whether the guy's fishing legally or not. Ferry Meadows in Peterborough has a similar situation no powered boats though on the pits.
-
Having read the link posted by Huge, several things strike me - Mr Levy from the Council peddles the usual line, it's all anglers fault. Swanman doesn’t appear to support his claim. Had there been evidence of the leading coming from "historic" lead shot, I'm sure he'd have mentioned it to say the least. In fact I'm certain he would have done, along the lines of, " We found under X ray of the birds, lead shot present in their gizzards. No, he seems to think the leading came from another source.
It was asked where this site was in relation to the Bewdley site - up or down? Bewdley lies 25 miles down river of the Atcham site.
It's clear from doing some research on lead mining in the Severn catchment area that the whole catchment was in the past a significant lead mining area. It would therefore be reasonable to assume there would be significant amounts of metallic lead tailings (slag from smelting) tipped in the catchment environment. I've already stated our forefathers weren't too particular and/or bothered about where they disposed of their wastes in what we now considered to be environmentally responsible ways.
Given the above facts does the Severn suffer from a higher than average leading problem than other rivers for it historic industrial practices?
OkSo you can tell from my earlier posts I would be happy to debate the whole angling and wildlife issue,
I have no issue and will always come down on the side of Responsible anglers, and would defend Angling against the likes of the Swan Lady.
I will how ever stand firm on the anglers who see fit to leave discarded tackle and rubbish. We as a sport need to take up the challenge of Educating those around us who act irresponsibly, You never see posters in Tackle shops advising on good behavior and bylaws, why can't the EA invest in a campaign against Litter for example, Surly the cost of the campaign would easily be covered by the fact there would be less rubbish to be removed from the banks.
One further thought, if the water is so polluted by Lead, why are the fish not suffering, they must eat more out of the sediment than the Swans, Just a thought.
Bluerinse
I think you'll find this of interest http://www.saauk.org/ go to Code of Conduct for Coarse Anglers (left bottom of the page) the EA (you and I) paid for it. And it up to about 200K hard copies and many thousands of downloads.
-
ColinW up to a point you are correct, deny them the oxygen of publicity. But in this case the council sympathise with her and could ban angling in the town, based on her spurious claims alone.
For them to make and informed decision they must be in possession of all the facts not just the facts driven by a hidden agenda.
Sadly we will always be fighting a rearguard action because of what happened back in the 1980s. We are the soft target every time!
It’s interesting to note the set of papers that brought this about were the Dr Spilitt papers, and the evidence on the face of it pointed to lead shot. But I also spoke and corresponded with him over the matter and put the defused lead case to him. To which I never got satisfactory answer, as he never said whether he looked at defused lead from other sources, choosing to stand behind his findings. That being, there was shot in the gizzard, therefore that was the source of the leading in birds.
I do not doubt lead shot in some circumstances contributed to some deaths but human nature is such that it’s easier to blame something you can see. Than something you can’t (defused lead in minute lead particle form).
My opinion then, as now, was we were blamed and scapegoated for all the ills, when in fact we made only a small, but highly visible contribution to the problem.
One further point on heavy metals per se, what people forget because our rivers now support a wealth of life, is that for over a hundred years our forefathers abused them pumping all the industrial wastes into them. Those toxic substances settled out in the sediments in the banks and on the beds of all those rivers. They will because they are extremely long lasting, spew out the insidious poisons for millennia to come.
-
I post on here very rarely now but take it from me, someone along with others, who worked on the lead issue last time around. This is historic environmental lead. Smelted and defused lead particles stays in the environment for thousands of years, of that there is no doubt or argument.
As Leon pointed out there were, and up to a point, still are many sources. The main ones were lead in Petrol, lead in tap water, industrial processes using lead, anglers lead shot and lead from shooter.
From memory the figure per year for the shot industry was just under 3 imperial tons made and sold. The petrol industry would never say how much lead they used per annum. Someone at the time, an angler, who worked in the industry, stated publicly the figure was around 110 ip tons per year. I put that figure to the Petrol Manufactures Association and they did not deny it, or confirm it. So you can take it, it was somewhere close to the mark.
Lead from petrol entered the aquatic environment in two ways, airborne, settling out on plants and wash off into ditches etc. The second was from direct contact with the road surface from the tail pipes of cars, subsequently being washed into the storm drains and rivers where it settles out as particulate matter.
We could never get a figure on how much lead came from lead pipes. Nor how much was used by industry at that time and previously.
The lead from petrol along with all other sources is still in the environment and will be for a very long time and will continue to cause lead poisoning to any bird or animal that feeds in the bottom sediment.
As a slight aside here, a friend of mine, who’s a Uni lecturer, did some work on urban foxes and how they died. He was astounded to find that a large % of them that were run over had high levels of lead in the brain. The lead was bioaccumulating up through the food chain. All the foxes that had high levels of brain lead also ate a lot of worms, which were present at post-mortem in the stomach. His conclusion was that the foxes that consumed large quantities of worms in the urban environment were eating historic lead mainly from petrol. It was already known that high levels of lead in the brain caused neurological and impaired motor problems. The foxes became reaction slow through it and were more prone to be involved in road accidents.
The reason why lead in petrol was banned was because the same symptoms were manifesting themselves in young school kids who's schools were near to a main road.
Harrington has never to my knowledge acknowledged this evidence and constantly blames it on anglers lead because she has another agenda. She is the only one of the swan rescue people who fails to see or acknowledge that any leading in birds is now down to historic lead for where ever it came from in the past.
Also note she says “Leading” in the piece. No reference to lead shot being present in the gizzard at post-mortem.
Now why has she picked on Bewdley Council? Two reason - big old Des lives there, a prominent angler nationally, and what a scalp to have fishing band on his doorstep. And the make up of the council, note the party “Health Concern”. Perhaps she thinks that health concern with extend into swans?
-
Condolences to Gerry’s family and friends, he’ll be missed by us all.
Phil H.
-
Your claim was that the figure of 4 million was spurious
Your Quote - “The figure of four million is utterly spurious.”
Clearly it is not!
• 2.6 million (6%) of the 43
million people aged over 12 in
England and Wales went fishing
in freshwaters in the last year.
1.5 million people fished just
in the sea.
So where is your evidence to back up what you claim?
Weasel words and lack of referencing your claims Mr McCraw, as you have consistently done throughout your replies, just don’t cut it!
Your Strawman is looking very silly though it.
In fact, he’s in danger of braking up and being smashed to pieces in the next riffle and plunge pool he comes to.
-
From an official Environment Agency Report
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subje.../subjects/fish/
Thanks Leon kew I could count on you to put the beef on it!
Now! Mr McCaw what you say?
I think its crash and burn, don't you!
-
Nice try, but allowing ramblers to access the moors will not lead to motorcyclists, then 4x4s, etc. - and fairer access for canoes in the rest of the world has not led to the situation you describe either. Access for all does not mean a free-for-all (last time I'm going to bother addressing this).
Must be very law abiding where you live, but down here on the Pennines we now have major problems with both, much to the disgust of ramblers, hikers and hill walkers.
Interestingly, they use the same argument that you’re advancing.
Likewise, there are problems on the upper Severn with jet skiers tearing up the river.
-
Phil, you are parroting the same straw man I just addressed, only with less aptitude. The words "access for all" imply that everyone should have the right to enjoy our river heritage - of course, with the appropriate responsibilities (and sanctions) enforced by law. Don't waste your time attacking a position we are not defending; with respect, it only makes you look silly.
Not quite as foolish, however, as your list of other watersports. We are campaigning for fairer access to rivers - how many windsurfers do you see on spate burns? Get many bog snorkelers on the rivers down your way? It smacks of hysteria to suggest that legislated fair access means jet skiiers ripping up your local beat.
Neither is there any point trying to add sea anglers or illegal anglers to a debate about inland water. The water being contended requires a rod licence which means you have just over a million bodies to argue with (although I didn't think about kids under 12 - that will increase your numbers). The figure of four million is utterly spurious.
You did write this, didn’t you?
“There are only a million rod licence holders in the UK; far fewer than the rapidly growing numbers involved in recreational watersport “
The BTU campaign states only ACCESS FOR ALL the rest is your add on.
If it is as you say, then the BTU is being disingenuous in the extreme to those it’s attempting to mislead into supporting its campaign.
My tong-in-check reference to bog snorkelers and river jumpers is no more silly than your attempt to lump in all recreational watersports to you cause.
And yes we do have bog snorkelers in my region?
As for sea anglers, the days of attacking and isolating a particular section of angling has gone, and injury to one section is an injury to all.
And your evidence for stating 4 Mil is spurious is what?
Oh I forgot license sales! Which doesn’t include sea anglers, kids and despised illegal anglers who chance their arm.
BTW the figure 4 M relates to all UK anglers, and in NI, or where you live, they don’t as yet need a rod license to fish.
-
Kids under 12 don’t need a license to fish, nor do sea anglers. Then there’s those who fish without a license (not condoned by me or any other self-respecting angler) but a fact of life, which can only be guesstimated. Those figure based on EA prosecutions run at between 10 & 20 % of anglers.
Totalling in all an estimated 4 million. Gross revenue 7 billion pounds per year to the British economy.
To attempt to now lump all watersports into your argument and say they all want access to the rivers is laughable. Or showing your real aim, which is as the BTU campaign says, ACCESS FOR ALL. Ergo a total free for all!
So lets list all those watersports you have just co-opted onto you side
Windsurfers
Rowers
Rafters (inflatable)
Rafter homemade
Dingy sailors
Pleasure boaters
Outboarders
Jetskiers
Swimmers
Rock divers and pool plungers
Divers (scuba)
Bog snorkelers
River jumpers yes there are such enthusiasts (Wannabe JC’s.)
Then there’s you
Canoers
Kayakers
And the overall governing umbrella body of these is who?
Errrr there isn’t one is there!
With 7 of them we do already share many of the waters with, where they are permitted.
PS add water sking to the list making it 8.
-
There are only a million rod licence holders in the UK; far fewer than the rapidly growing numbers involved in recreational watersport. It is obvious that your sharing of our finite natural heritage with others will require compromise - the reason fairer access is opposed by most anglers, and why voluntary access agreements are such a dismal failure.
It has been a pleasure.
Kids under 12 don’t need a license to fish, nor do sea anglers. Then there’s those who fish without a license (not condoned by me or any other self-respecting angler) but a fact of life, which can only be guesstimated. Those figure based on EA prosecutions run at between 10 & 20 % of anglers.
Totalling in all an estimated 4 million. Gross revenue 7 billion pounds per year to the British economy.
To attempt to now lump all watersports into your argument and say they all want access to the rivers is laughable. Or showing your real aim, which is as the BTU campaign says, ACCESS FOR ALL. Ergo a total free for all!
So lets list all those watersports you have just co-opted onto you side
Windsurfers
Rowers
Rafters (inflatable)
Rafter homemade
Dingy sailors
Pleasure boaters
Outboarders
Jetskiers
Swimmers
Rock divers and pool plungers
Divers (scuba)
Bog snorkelers
River jumpers yes there are such enthusiasts (Wannabe JC’s.)
Then there’s you
Canoers
Kayakers
And the overall governing umbrella body of these is who?
Errrr there isn’t one is there!
With 7 of them we do already share many of the waters with, where they are permitted.
-
Don't make assumptions. I quote: "The evidence regarding the impacts of canoeing and fishing on the environment has been much disputed since the Environment Agency (2000) report on this issue suggested canoeing had minimal impact..."
The worst Brighton comes up with is that one study in Germany suggested non-powered craft may disturb rare and sensitive fish which occupy a tight niche. Presumably this is not referring to trout and salmon (and canoeists could certainly live with not being allowed access to areas of rare sensitive fish... by definition they must be rare after all). You might like to note that despite this, in Germany land owners are obliged to make rivers available for recreational use.
The point I was making is that we canoe extensively on game rivers in Scotland but the environment has not been damaged, and the fish not disturbed. I don't deny that there are more anglers in England and Wales but that's not a valid argument as to why you should have exclusive access (only an argument for more careful sharing).
I made no assumptions you stated as absolute fact last time!
You now acknowledge it is disputed, and very much so.
As for assumptions, aren’t you doing just that saying, “The point I was making is that we canoe extensively on game rivers in Scotland but the environment has not been damaged, and the fish not disturbed.”
You have no scientific evidence to back up this claim only opinion…….your opinion!
The valid argument is that most of the rivers, bar the ones you already have access to, are too narrow and shallow for paddling and angling to take place on, which I pointed out to on FM. And don’t tell me paddlers have no interest in them, because I like many others see them all the time.
You put much store in you only run them in the winter when the waters high and close season. The Coarse fishing season in E & W runs from 16/6 to 15/3 inclusive. In other words it runs the winter months!
River anglers whilst fishing the rivers all season, including the winter, find some of the best fishing during the winter months coincides with high water, particularly if its rain water from the southwest, as the river temperature rises and bring the fish on the feed.
-
This assumption that all the arguments of paddlers for greater river access is based around ficticious statistics is wearisome.
The figures were arrived at by a BCU survey of affiliated clubs, coaching providers and outdoor pursuits centres in order to ascertain the correlation between the numbers of people trying paddlesports each year and those taking up BCU membership. This survey was conducted in order to ascertain whether adaptations should be made to the BCU coaching scheme in order to promote retention of new participants.
Figures for rowing were not included as rowing is regulated entirely seperately and would as such be irrelevant.
I've no doubt you do find it wearisome when multiple counting questions are asked of you, knowing full well the figures given are for sessions in a Canoe/Kayak by such centres, coaches, etc, when the same people, group, organisations are turning up and being counted many times over.
If angling did the same method of counting for people trying fishing per year, it’d run into billions not millions.
And the BTU membership number is what?
-
You persist in saying it work well in Scotland on the game rivers. There are far less anglers (game) than there are in E & W. of both disciplines coarse and game. The ratio is about 5 to 1 in favour of E & W.
There is as I’ve told you before when you appeared on Fishingmagic a world of difference between coarse fishing E & W and Scottish game fishing.
-
"According to the last review, over 1.5m people try paddlesports each year - this is in the same ball park as the number of rod licences sold - yet canoeists are barred from 99% of rivers... I'm sure you can all agree that this situation is unfair.
How much multiple counting was done when compiling these figures one wonders?
How much was rowing boats? And not as Mr McCraw is attempting to mislead readers into believing Canoes and Kayaks.
"The government's own studies concluded that the presence of canoes causes no environmental damage or long-term disruption to fish (as those of us who have been paddling on Scotland's finest angling rivers for decades can readily tell you)."
The report (Brighton Report for DEFRA) say nothing of the sort, as you know very well MR McCraw!
Yet again your attempting to mislead the readers!
-
We use the same reels but the rods are designed especially for icefishing.
Fascinating Jan O!
-
Further questions to either you or Newt.
What rods and reels would you use for such fishing.
Do you use those short rods we’ve all see on TV ads of Eskimos in the UK?
Are the reels the same as the ones you’d use when there’s no stiff water, or are they different ones?
-
Nice.
LOL - that first picture looks like you almost had more fish than ice-hole though.
Jan O what do you do if you have more fish than ice-hole?
-
Once saw a dead sheep in the river that looked like it had been mauled by a rather large pike. Might be worth giving them ago as well!
-
All have a look at this site, there's some interesting views and attitudes on display
http://www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk/forum/v...t=11278&start=0
-
Conceived wisdom suggests that what as been written above is generally the case.
In 25+ years of breaming on the Cheshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire meres 99 time out of a 100 when I’ve seen them rolling in my swim, I’ve caught fish.
But as Steve Burk has said they don’t roll on all waters. On one notoriously hard mere I only witnessed them rolling on two occasion and both times I caught.
My own view is that the deeper the water the less likely they are to roll. In the NW we have some very deep reservoirs (80-100ft deep), which have some modest bream (7-9lbs) in them. I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve seen them roll on these waters when full.
Strangely if the level drops (30ft as has happened this summer) you see them rolling in the shallower parts (15ft) quite readily.
Weedy waters in my experience are another type of water where you don’t see them roll very often.
-
Nick thanks for identifying who you are, one can never be too careful these days when people ask questions about someone you know. And yes I do remember you from SACG meets. Now I know who you are, I'll make enquiries ASAP to see if I can track him down for you and Steve.
All other correspondence will be carried out privately by e-mail if you don’t mind?
EA to allow water companies to monitor pollution control
in Coarse Fishing
Posted
See here for details
http://www.a-c-a.org/whatsnew.php
Be afraid be very afraid!