Jump to content

Bob Bradford

Members
  • Content Count

    787
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Bob Bradford

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://N/A
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Norfolk
  • Interests
    Match angling, self defence, football and managing a fantasy football team.
  1. Sorry for the delay Gozzer (John) but work got in the way, I have cut and pasted your questions to Mark Lloyd on the Angling Trust forum, please keep an eye out for his response on there, as I may not have the time to cut and paste them on here, Regards Bob.
  2. Leon, is there any evidence these measures are working? if they are, then why the proposed by-laws on rod and line caught Eels? Gozzer (John) pertinent questions that need answering ............but not by me, by Mark Lloyd or Mike Heylin I would have thought, would you like me to ask these questions on the Angling Trust forum on your behalf?
  3. I agree, I agree I agree! really most of us are not that far apart with our thoughts, which is precisely why, as a concerned member of the Angling Trust I asked Mark Lloyd recently, and on the Angling Trust forum, to expand on his/AT's thoughts regarding the issue of commercial netting, I am still waiting for a reply, perhaps he has not spotted it, so I will ask the question of him, and again ,and again and again, until he answers, fair enough Worms?
  4. Yes, it was my attempt at a little levity, this thread has become very depressing and going round and round in circles, I will try to appeal to the common sense and reasoning of some one last time, although I will not hold my breath though, here goes; I am suggesting the White noise is emanating from this forum, or at least from a few of it's members, they drone on and on relentlessly, in the end people stop listening, this thread is dripping with negativity, I have read through all of it and it is the same few protagonists, they spend hours on here, would they not be better employed doing something more constructive and meaningful? Lets take a look at the Eel issue, I live in the East of England and there was a time when all the major rivers, Welland,Witham,Trent ,Nene, Yare, Waveney, Bure etc, were over run with them, some of the matches I used to fish, one had to target the Eel as a match winning option, such was their abundance! Now go to any of those rivers and TRY and catch one ,single solitary Eel, it is nigh on impossible, such is the extent of it's demise........so as a conservationist and realist, ask yourself what exactly it is the new proposed legislation is asking you to "give up?" To continue catching it's ever decreasing numbers and taking them for the pot is nothing short of vandalism, to demand the right to do so is nothing short of criminal. I realise that some of you see the Eel issue as a point of principle that you must make a stand on, an eroding of your "free will?", I also realise that some of you are responsible enough to catch and release all the Eels you catch because you are aware of their plight, but not every angler will show the same logic or compassion........hence the new proposals, we, anglers, have to take responsibility because no-one else will. These fish need protecting NOW! and the new proposed by-law are one small step toward that aim, we have to compromise to ask others to compromise, indeed , we have to demand the commercial Eel netters give up their livelihood, some like Steve are demanding just that, so a man must give up his only form of income to appease you, but you will not give up the right to take "one for the pot Steve?" can you not see how unjust and selfish that is? Stop being so bloody minded and petty, anglers can lead the way on this , and show the world we are prepared to make sacrifices for the good of the common Eel, I will be fighting as hard as anyone to stop the commercial netting of Eels, lets do this together ,standing shoulder to shoulder like responsible anglers for the overall good of angling eh?
  5. Not spin pal, just pointing out a fact. Some are so concerned about their angling, but they actually do nothing of any significance , they take but put nothing back, they wish to be heard, but will not pay to be heard, they want an organisation but will not join one, they talk of "rights" but will not fight for their "rights", ...................I think White Noise sums them up accurately enough. Regards Bob.
  6. http://www.whitenoisemachine.co.uk/
  7. Steve and Barry, Have you ever heard of the term "White Noise"?.
  8. The question anglers like Barry should be asking is; What is the point of the Angling Trust existing, if anglers refuse to join it? It is totally unrealistic to expect the Angling Trust to have the resources to fight tooth and nail for anglers rights with very little or no financial support. Remind me again.................How many sea anglers are members of the Angling Trust? No pay, no say.
  9. Here is a snippet from the e-mail I posted on another thread earlier today, the e-mail is directly from the EA to me; "Since the earlier consultation, we have decided to postpone our eel and elver net fishing proposals until 2011 (the urgent need to introduce net fishing close seasons for 2010 will be provided through another route)." I do not know what the "other route "is, though..................anyone know?
  10. The point is, if the Angling Trust had a much larger membership, the EA would be forced to consult it, therefore us as anglers, I repeat by anglers choosing not to join the Trust ,they are choosing to be insignificant, they have NO say whatsoever and the Trust has very little real clout, it is not brain surgery is it? I am sure the Trust can and should do more to recruit anglers, I am sure they are far,far from perfect, I am sure I will never agree with all of their policy's, by I am equally sure, cutting my nose off to spoil my face is just plain daft, the end game or big picture if you like,is what overrides everything IMO, right now we have a chance to be represented and heard, kill that chance through lack of financial support and we are well and truly stuffed for ever, we will all just have to sit back and take whatever the EA dish out to us, I do not care how many e-mails or letters Barry Luxton sends either, admirable as they are, it will count for precisely nothing mate.
  11. No Budgie, they e-mailed me because I was one of the few anglers to take part in their survey, I did this as an Un-elected, conscientious and concerned angler, the survey was brought to my attention by a member of another angling forum, he is also a member of the Angling Trust, and has already been criticized on here for having a view contrary to some ! It stands to reason the Angling Trust can only be viewed by the EA on it's membership numbers, so they will look at the 14,000 membership , plus any individual comments made by people like me , so therefore duplicated in many of the 800 responses received to them...........and plough on regardless! the first thing they will do is state only a small % of anglers responded to the proposals, so by default , the majority are for them......this is precisely why it is imperative that the majority of anglers join the Angling Trust. This is what I mean by the majority of anglers choosing to be insignificant, not to me, not to the Angling Trust but to the Government and therefore the EA Government dept, this is what I keep banging my bloody head against mate.
  12. This is what I received in full via e-mail. Dear sir or madam, We are advertising new fisheries byelaws on 16 December 2009. Earlier this year we invited you to contribute to a debate on proposed byelaws covering – - coarse fish, eel and shad removal by rod and line; - close seasons for brown trout and salmon in stillwaters; - net fishing for eel and elver. We received replies from over 1000 people and organisations, for which we are extremely grateful. We have collated and published a summary of the responses on our website at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homea...ing/112102.aspx. The comments and views we received during this informal consultation helped us develop our proposals further. We are now advertising the final byelaws, as we are obliged to do in law, giving anyone an opportunity to object or offer support to them. What byelaws are included? Since the earlier consultation, we have decided to postpone our eel and elver net fishing proposals until 2011 (the urgent need to introduce net fishing close seasons for 2010 will be provided through another route). However, we are proceeding with proposals to – - regulate coarse fish, eel and shad removal by rod and line; - dispense with the brown trout close season on stillwater fisheries. In addition, we are taking the opportunity to remove the coarse fishing close season from a 5 stillwater Sites of Special Scientific Interest in England, where angling is perceived not to affect the conservation value of the site, and from 22 enclosed stillwater fisheries which fall within, but are not part of the Norfolk Broads. When the Marine and Coastal Access Act was made law in November 2009, it prohibited the use of the tailer and gaff as accessories to angling. We need to repeal existing byelaws that have allowed their use. By advertising, we are giving anyone the opportunity offer support or object to the proposals. We have placed a statutory notice in the London Gazette and on-line adverts on the websites of the Times, Telegraph, Mirror, Western Mail and Daily Post and on several angling media websites. We have issued a press release to the angling and national media; written to the principal angling and fisheries representatives; and, via this e-mail, we are notifying the 850+ people who responded by e-mail to the informal consultation. How can I respond? A copy of each byelaw is attached, together with a short explanation. You can also obtain the byelaws from www.environment-agency.gov.uk/fish/byelaws, by phoning 08708 506 506* or from any Environment Agency office, where they may be inspected during office hours. If you wish to object or offer support to the new byelaws, please write to Alexander Kinninmonth at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Marine and Freshwater Biodiversity Division, Area 2D, Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR (alexander.kinninmonth@defra.gsi.gov.uk) or to Graham Rees at the Llywodraeth Cynulliad Cymru/Welsh Assembly Government, Yr Uned Bysgodfeydd/Fisheries Unit, Rhodfa Padarn, Llanbadarn Fawr, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3UR (fisheries@wales.gsi.gov.uk). The closing date for objections is Wednesday 20 January 2010. At the same time, please send a copy to Mat Crocker, Head of Fisheries, Environment Agency, Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol, BS32 4UD or by e-mail to fisheries@environment-agency.gov.uk. At the end of the consultation period, copies of the responses may be made public. The information contained may also be published in a summary of responses. If you do not consent to this, you must clearly request that your response be treated confidentially. You should also be aware that there may be circumstances in which the Environment Agency will be required to communicate information to third parties on request, in order to comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations. What happens next? We will reply to anyone objecting to the byelaws, responding to the issues they raise and inviting them to withdraw their objection. After 20 January, we will formally apply to the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers for confirmation of the byelaws, enclosing any outstanding objections and suggested modifications. I hope you find this helpful. Yours faithfully
  13. Dave B, your last paragraph is poignant, there is so much ill informed opinion out there, the trouble is, some anglers are seizing upon this "information" to justify not joining the Angling Trust, why they do this is beyond me, after-all, it is their right not to join, so why not leave it at that? instead of spewing out lies and falsehoods at every opportunity? this issue alone frustrates and annoys the hell out of me, the amount of negativity generated by these thoughtless, selfish actions is very,very damaging and unfair to the Trust and to people like Mark Lloyd , anglers have to understand just how stretched the Trust is, in terms of money and time, remember, seven members of staff lost their jobs in this, their very first year....... why? because of lack of funds available to the Trust., this is bound to affect their performance is it not? ......... here we have the classic "chicken and egg" scenario. I have stated many,many times that paying the £20 membership fee is a leap of faith , just as it was/ is for me , but logic dictates this is the ONLY way the Trust can start to deliver a proper service, anglers should look upon it as an investment with long term returns ,and not a get rich quick scheme, patience is required, a virtue I thought anglers were renowned for! The truth is not palatable for some, but unfortunately the truth is, a lot of informed anglers are the guilty party in this, they just refuse to accept responsibility for it. So I urge each and every one of you to put aside your prejudices and join the Angling Trust, part with your £20, put your full weight of support behind the concept and, as a joined up member, make sure the Trust delivers to the uninformed..........it is the only way, the duty is on you as a caring, informed and concerned angler.
  14. "The get a life girlfriend "line was my attempt at humour, oh! well never mind, to be honest I am worn down by all of this, ground into the dust, I have never encountered so much negativity, I feel almost suicidal!!! anyone would think the Angling Trust was an anti angling organisation reading through some of the outrageous comments on here. I think it is best not to feed you with anymore ammo, I agree Davy, this thread is doing nothing to help the Angling Trust, including my part in it, so I will stop feeding the trolls at this point. Regards Bob.
×
×
  • Create New...