Leon Roskilly

Oh Christ! UNITY Government are besieged by bodies demanding to be listened too, demanding funding for projects, demanding this demanding that! Not only govenment, arms of government, regional authorities, Associations of Town Councils.....whatever. They don't have the time or resources to listen to piddling little organisations and their piddling little demands. Especially when one group representing some anglers wants one thing, another has different views. 'Minister, I've scheduled ten meetings with different angling groups for you this week and cancelled the meeting with the Society of Refugees. I've outlined all the different and conflicting interests of the angling groups, but I'm sure more will come out during their dicussions' 'What, I'm not sorting that lot out, tell them to s*d off until they can all agree on what they want to say to me, and come back with one voice. With any luck they will spend the next ten years fighting amongst themselves over some piddling little matter and we won't have to bother with them at all - cancel the anglers and rearrage that meeting with the refugees lot please.' UNITY Can you even begin to understand the amount of work put in by dedicated individuals to get this far. The years of hard work, the issues which have had to be thrashed out, the disagreements resolved, the unwelcome compromises that have had to be made on all sides. The toll taken of those poor sods involved, those very few of the 3 million of us who are prepared to make the effort? UNITY Without it anglers are nothing. It's still a hard and a rocky road, but it is a way forward. It brings us out of the swamp where we blunder around fighting each other, ignored by the authorities concerned with more powerful and better organised lobbies. UNITY Look at all of the issues that the NAA is dealing with, look at the lengthy agenda for any SAA meeting. Many, many matters, many important matters, many issues to be resolved by angling. Through the NAA we have a chance. UNITY er, we don't like the MOU, so we are going to drop out of UNITY for a while. You blokes carry on making all the important decisions without us (but if we don't agree we would still expect you to take account of our views while we are out). Then we will we decide when would be a good time to come and join you again. Listen, if SAA were to drop out of the NAA, do you really think they would ever be allowed back in? What of UNITY, if every organisation that fought to be around the UNITY table decided to drop out any time a decision was made with which they didn't agree? UNITY Do you really want to throw away all those years of hard work, by all those dedicated anglers? Do you really want to throw away all the benefits that UNITY brings to angling? Well, if someone else did all the hard work to bring it about, and someone else will need to do all the hard work to try to rebuild what has been destroyed, rebuild the trust and the confidence. Well yes, I can see your point. Only you will have to do that over my dead body. <rant ends> Tight Lines - leon

Lee, Unfortunately mud thrown has a habit of sticking. I really mustn't let you get away with that. Read back carefully through these posts. No-one from the SAA even comes close to singing the praises of the MOU. Signing it was a decision taken by the NAA, who represent all branches of angling and must carefully weigh all arguments, from all anglers, from all disciplines. Debate within the SAA was heated - see Mike's earlier post : 'The NAA/CA situation was discussed, with no little heat, at the SAA meeting in February. The consensus from those present, mostly reps from SSGs, was that we should proceed with care but get CA under some control. The problems and dangers were well understood, not only within SAA, but within all the bodies present at the NAA meeting which finally signed the MoU.' The SAA came to what can only be described as reluctant acceptance of the decision. As I posted earlier: 'IMO opinion, weighing up all the factors, they have done a good job, or at least made the best of what could have been a very bad job indeed.' I’m sorry that not everyone here have been party to the real debate, but I’m as certain as can be that the views you hold were fairly represented, and in proportion to all other views pertaining throughout the angling world. <rant snipped> Gotta go now – so much to do!! Tight Lines - leon

Lee, Unfortunately mud thrown has a habit of sticking. I really mustn't let you get away with that. Read back carefully through these posts. No-one from the SAA even comes close to singing the praises of the MOU. Signing it was a decision taken by the NAA, who represent all branches of angling and must carefully weigh all arguments, from all anglers, from all disciplines. Debate within the SAA was heated - see Mike's earlier post : 'The NAA/CA situation was discussed, with no little heat, at the SAA meeting in February. The consensus from those present, mostly reps from SSGs, was that we should proceed with care but get CA under some control. The problems and dangers were well understood, not only within SAA, but within all the bodies present at the NAA meeting which finally signed the MoU.' The SAA came to what can only be described as reluctant acceptance of the decision. As I posted earlier: 'IMO opinion, weighing up all the factors, they have done a good job, or at least made the best of what could have been a very bad job indeed.' I’m sorry that not everyone here have been party to the real debate, but I’m as certain as can be that the views you hold were fairly represented, and in proportion to all other views pertaining throughout the angling world. <rant snipped> Gotta go now – so much to do!! Tight Lines - leon

Neil is worse As in I caught a neel! Tight AAAaargghh! Leon

Neil is worse As in I caught a neel! Tight AAAaargghh! Leon

Once created, organisations take on a life of their own. Long after the original purpose for which they have been formed has been achieved or lost, the organisation evolves and moves on. All those people bought together, working together, socialising together. The newly politicised, with a taste for power and influence. Lee is right, the death of fox-hunting will not mean the end of the CA, they have a much expanded agenda, encompassing all ‘countryside’ issues. (I’ve just remembered, in my youth, in Australia, I was for a time a member of the Country Party!). Where you may be going astray Lee is in thinking that making fox hunting illegal will be the end of the matter. It won’t, and the government knows that. That is why it is so fearful of bringing in legislation. Believe me the issue will be alive for years to come yet. The legislation will be tattered with enemy holes, legal loopholes will be explored, and the legislation challenged. Supporters have already stated that they are prepared to go to jail, rather than to conform. As I understand it, fox-hunting will probably still be allowed in (upland) areas, where it is the most effective and most humane way of controlling foxes. The antis won’t like that, and the campaigns on both sides will continue. Let’s see fox-hunting is banned tomorrow. Fair enough. So what’s to stop me and my mates, dressing up in red coats and going for a ride in the country? We’ll probably take our dogs along for some fresh air at the same time. We are just going out for a ride, not hunting foxes. 'Blast, the dogs have gone after a scent – better call them in. Toot! Toot! After them Lads!' 'Er, Officer, Hunting? Not us we were just chasing after our dogs who were following the scent of a fox, trying to get them in, Don’t you know?' Let’s say the legislation is so tight, that that device doesn’t work. 'M’lud, Mrs Brown, 86 years old, was just out walking her dog, when it went through the hedge after a rabbit.' 'Learned Council you know full well that the law is an ass, she was clearly breaking the law! 20 years on bread and water. Next Case!' OK so riding in company, accompanied by dogs is disallowed. So off I go alone, s’funny lots of other guys I know are out today as well - Blast the dog’s got a scent, now all the others are joining in. 'Honestly officer, I was riding on my own, wiv me dog when it joined an impromptu chase. I went after it by myself, and so did all these other blokes, but I wasn’t with them, if you get my meaning.' Shall I go on? Legislation to ban fox-hunting maybe. The end of fox-hunting? I very much doubt it. Years of mayhem to come yet I expect (and so does the government, hence the reluctance to proceed with legislation). Fox-hunting will be at the top of the CA agenda for a long, long while. To make my own position clear, if I was to asked if I supported persuading people to give up fox-hunting, I'd answer with a definite ‘Yes’ (and said passionately). If I was asked to agree to legislate against the rights of a section of our population, because a majority supported it, and it makes the government popular, then I’d answer ‘No’ (with an equal amount of passion). (OK I know, I know, it’s not that black and white – but that’s my basic position and I’m not that mush interested that I want to debate the rights and wrongs of fox-hunting ad infinitum. There’s far more important matters to attend to). What’s all this to do with fishing? I’ll let you work that out Tight Lines - leon

Once created, organisations take on a life of their own. Long after the original purpose for which they have been formed has been achieved or lost, the organisation evolves and moves on. All those people bought together, working together, socialising together. The newly politicised, with a taste for power and influence. Lee is right, the death of fox-hunting will not mean the end of the CA, they have a much expanded agenda, encompassing all ‘countryside’ issues. (I’ve just remembered, in my youth, in Australia, I was for a time a member of the Country Party!). Where you may be going astray Lee is in thinking that making fox hunting illegal will be the end of the matter. It won’t, and the government knows that. That is why it is so fearful of bringing in legislation. Believe me the issue will be alive for years to come yet. The legislation will be tattered with enemy holes, legal loopholes will be explored, and the legislation challenged. Supporters have already stated that they are prepared to go to jail, rather than to conform. As I understand it, fox-hunting will probably still be allowed in (upland) areas, where it is the most effective and most humane way of controlling foxes. The antis won’t like that, and the campaigns on both sides will continue. Let’s see fox-hunting is banned tomorrow. Fair enough. So what’s to stop me and my mates, dressing up in red coats and going for a ride in the country? We’ll probably take our dogs along for some fresh air at the same time. We are just going out for a ride, not hunting foxes. 'Blast, the dogs have gone after a scent – better call them in. Toot! Toot! After them Lads!' 'Er, Officer, Hunting? Not us we were just chasing after our dogs who were following the scent of a fox, trying to get them in, Don’t you know?' Let’s say the legislation is so tight, that that device doesn’t work. 'M’lud, Mrs Brown, 86 years old, was just out walking her dog, when it went through the hedge after a rabbit.' 'Learned Council you know full well that the law is an ass, she was clearly breaking the law! 20 years on bread and water. Next Case!' OK so riding in company, accompanied by dogs is disallowed. So off I go alone, s’funny lots of other guys I know are out today as well - Blast the dog’s got a scent, now all the others are joining in. 'Honestly officer, I was riding on my own, wiv me dog when it joined an impromptu chase. I went after it by myself, and so did all these other blokes, but I wasn’t with them, if you get my meaning.' Shall I go on? Legislation to ban fox-hunting maybe. The end of fox-hunting? I very much doubt it. Years of mayhem to come yet I expect (and so does the government, hence the reluctance to proceed with legislation). Fox-hunting will be at the top of the CA agenda for a long, long while. To make my own position clear, if I was to asked if I supported persuading people to give up fox-hunting, I'd answer with a definite ‘Yes’ (and said passionately). If I was asked to agree to legislate against the rights of a section of our population, because a majority supported it, and it makes the government popular, then I’d answer ‘No’ (with an equal amount of passion). (OK I know, I know, it’s not that black and white – but that’s my basic position and I’m not that mush interested that I want to debate the rights and wrongs of fox-hunting ad infinitum. There’s far more important matters to attend to). What’s all this to do with fishing? I’ll let you work that out Tight Lines - leon

Steve forgive me, but that sounds rather like a sketch I once watched: 'Children, today we will show you how to cure all mankind's diseases. So, how do you cure all mankind's diseases? Well you have to work very hard at school and get into university, then study very hard and become a brilliant doctor, then you go out and discover a cure for all the world's diseases. Tomorrow we will tell you how to eliminate poverty and bring about world peace.' Surely it can't be beyond the wit and imagination on those who seek and hold some sort of authority. Steve, all we have is those (too few) anglers who go beyond expressing their opinions and are prepared to step forward to do the job as best they can; fitting in the meetings, reading reams and reams of documents and emails, trying to take account of everyone's opposing views, and giving up time from family, business and fishing, all largely paid for out of their own pockets. Then suffering the brickbats when they inevitably fail to please everyone. Anyone else who wants to make sure that their views are expressed properly, and who are prepared to share the load - well the door's open and there's a hearty welcome on the mat Tight Lines - leon

Steve forgive me, but that sounds rather like a sketch I once watched: 'Children, today we will show you how to cure all mankind's diseases. So, how do you cure all mankind's diseases? Well you have to work very hard at school and get into university, then study very hard and become a brilliant doctor, then you go out and discover a cure for all the world's diseases. Tomorrow we will tell you how to eliminate poverty and bring about world peace.' Surely it can't be beyond the wit and imagination on those who seek and hold some sort of authority. Steve, all we have is those (too few) anglers who go beyond expressing their opinions and are prepared to step forward to do the job as best they can; fitting in the meetings, reading reams and reams of documents and emails, trying to take account of everyone's opposing views, and giving up time from family, business and fishing, all largely paid for out of their own pockets. Then suffering the brickbats when they inevitably fail to please everyone. Anyone else who wants to make sure that their views are expressed properly, and who are prepared to share the load - well the door's open and there's a hearty welcome on the mat Tight Lines - leon

Hooray, it's back Tight Lines - leon

Hooray, it's back Tight Lines - leon

If you go swimming and find that someone has drained your pool, you'd complain! Build a fishery where there otters around - I couldn't agree more. Build a fishery where otters haven't been around for 50 years, then have someone decide to release them next door - I think that you have just cause for complaint. Personally, I'd be quite happy, fishing a wild natural water, to have an otter sharing the river, I'd enjoy watching it fishing as much as I enjoy watching the kingfishers. I don't think that anyone is proposing that the released otters should be hunted down and exterminated (apart from Izaak!). What the SAA is looking for is the cessation of further releases where these are likely to be a problem, and for some form of assistance to fishery operators in protecting affected fisheries from the ravages of otters irresponsibly released. Tight Lines - leon

If you go swimming and find that someone has drained your pool, you'd complain! Build a fishery where there otters around - I couldn't agree more. Build a fishery where otters haven't been around for 50 years, then have someone decide to release them next door - I think that you have just cause for complaint. Personally, I'd be quite happy, fishing a wild natural water, to have an otter sharing the river, I'd enjoy watching it fishing as much as I enjoy watching the kingfishers. I don't think that anyone is proposing that the released otters should be hunted down and exterminated (apart from Izaak!). What the SAA is looking for is the cessation of further releases where these are likely to be a problem, and for some form of assistance to fishery operators in protecting affected fisheries from the ravages of otters irresponsibly released. Tight Lines - leon

Many anglers would like to have no truck with the CA at all. But then many other anglers feel passionately that anglers should stand alongside their brethren who follow other country 'sports'. The divide was there long before the memorandum was agreed, just look at the debates on this issue on any of the fishing forums. Sea and Game, as well as coarse. The CA is determined to speak upon all countryside issues, and like it or not, it is supported by many anglers. Angling is regarded by many as a country pursuit, and the CA felt it within their remit to talk about angling in the same breathe as it defends other pursuits. And remember we are talking game and sea, where the catches are killed and eaten, as well as coarse. So, should the NAA have kept totally out of it, and allowed the CA to comment on angling matters how they think fit, and with a free rein, putting the spin on our sport which best suits their purpose? Or should the NAA have stayed away from the CA, but took them on publicly whenever what they were saying seemed detrimental to our sport, and the way we choose to portray ourselves? What a battle that could be!! What passions would be stirred on either side of the angling divide!! How the Antis would have loved that!! Or, by careful negotiation, have the CAA recognise that the governing bodies of our sport, through the NAA, is the correct voice which should speak on behalf of angling? Pretty easy to knock what has been achieved. But what course of action would you have followed, and if different to that pursued by the NAA, how would that have been better? Come, let's have your constructive ideas as to how the situation could have been handled differently, and the great dangers better avoided? No one I've talked to likes having to react to a situation that is not of angling's making, in what seems to be the best way possible, but angling's politicians have to deal with the world as it is, not as we would have liked it to be. IMO opinion, weighing up all the factors, they have done a good job, or at least made the best of what could have been a very bad job indeed. For that they should be congratulated. Tight Lines - leon

Many anglers would like to have no truck with the CA at all. But then many other anglers feel passionately that anglers should stand alongside their brethren who follow other country 'sports'. The divide was there long before the memorandum was agreed, just look at the debates on this issue on any of the fishing forums. Sea and Game, as well as coarse. The CA is determined to speak upon all countryside issues, and like it or not, it is supported by many anglers. Angling is regarded by many as a country pursuit, and the CA felt it within their remit to talk about angling in the same breathe as it defends other pursuits. And remember we are talking game and sea, where the catches are killed and eaten, as well as coarse. So, should the NAA have kept totally out of it, and allowed the CA to comment on angling matters how they think fit, and with a free rein, putting the spin on our sport which best suits their purpose? Or should the NAA have stayed away from the CA, but took them on publicly whenever what they were saying seemed detrimental to our sport, and the way we choose to portray ourselves? What a battle that could be!! What passions would be stirred on either side of the angling divide!! How the Antis would have loved that!! Or, by careful negotiation, have the CAA recognise that the governing bodies of our sport, through the NAA, is the correct voice which should speak on behalf of angling? Pretty easy to knock what has been achieved. But what course of action would you have followed, and if different to that pursued by the NAA, how would that have been better? Come, let's have your constructive ideas as to how the situation could have been handled differently, and the great dangers better avoided? No one I've talked to likes having to react to a situation that is not of angling's making, in what seems to be the best way possible, but angling's politicians have to deal with the world as it is, not as we would have liked it to be. IMO opinion, weighing up all the factors, they have done a good job, or at least made the best of what could have been a very bad job indeed. For that they should be congratulated. Tight Lines - leon

Sorry Miasma, as I stated in my first post on this thread (see above): 'I must adnmit that I haven't had sight of the memorandum of understanding signed on behalf of all anglers by our governing body. Anyone care to post it here for all to see?' Tight Lines - leon

Sorry Miasma, as I stated in my first post on this thread (see above): 'I must adnmit that I haven't had sight of the memorandum of understanding signed on behalf of all anglers by our governing body. Anyone care to post it here for all to see?' Tight Lines - leon

Pete, My comments weren't directed at Roy Westwood, but at those who have (mischievously?) represented the agreement as an enthusiastic bedding down together of the NAA and the CA. Had the story been presented for what it was, when it first broke, then anglers may not have been so agile in jumping to one side of the fence or the other. But reporting 'sensible decision taken, not much impact, successful damage limitation exercise, congratulations to everyone involved' doesn't have the same impact as 'NAA and CA join forces!' Nor does it generate heat and debate for the letter pages; always useful for getting circulation figures up. I think we need to look elsewhere for those responsible for dividing the opinions of anglers. Tight Lines - leon

Pete, My comments weren't directed at Roy Westwood, but at those who have (mischievously?) represented the agreement as an enthusiastic bedding down together of the NAA and the CA. Had the story been presented for what it was, when it first broke, then anglers may not have been so agile in jumping to one side of the fence or the other. But reporting 'sensible decision taken, not much impact, successful damage limitation exercise, congratulations to everyone involved' doesn't have the same impact as 'NAA and CA join forces!' Nor does it generate heat and debate for the letter pages; always useful for getting circulation figures up. I think we need to look elsewhere for those responsible for dividing the opinions of anglers. Tight Lines - leon

Pete, My comments weren't directed at Roy Westwood, but at those who have (mischievously?) represented the agreement as an enthusiastic bedding down together of the NAA and the CA. Had the story been presented for what it was, when it first broke, then anglers may not have been so agile in jumping to one side of the fence or the other. But reporting 'sensible decision taken, not much impact, successful damage limitation exercise, congratulations to everyone involved' doesn't have the same impact as 'NAA and CA join forces!' Nor does it generate heat and debate for the letter pages; always useful for getting circulation figures up. I think we need to look elsewhere for those responsible for dividing the opinions of anglers. Tight Lines - leon

Pete, My comments weren't directed at Roy Westwood, but at those who have (mischievously?) represented the agreement as an enthusiastic bedding down together of the NAA and the CA. Had the story been presented for what it was, when it first broke, then anglers may not have been so agile in jumping to one side of the fence or the other. But reporting 'sensible decision taken, not much impact, successful damage limitation exercise, congratulations to everyone involved' doesn't have the same impact as 'NAA and CA join forces!' Nor does it generate heat and debate for the letter pages; always useful for getting circulation figures up. I think we need to look elsewhere for those responsible for dividing the opinions of anglers. Tight Lines - leon

Phone, Over here, a rod has eyes for the line to pass through and is used with a reel. A pole has no eyes, and the line is attached directly to the tip (or actually to a length of elastic which emerges from the tip). A rod is used for casting long distances and for battling with powerful fish. Delicate bait presentation, in exactly the right spot is a problem, especially if the wind is blowing your line about.. A pole (which can be in excess of 15metres long and cost several thousand pounds) is used to lower and hold the bait in a static position at distance. The elastic is used to play the fish and the fish is bought shorewards, by unshipping sections of the pole. Great for fishing matches on canals and stillwaters for smallish fish, but a bit of a problem when a 30lber takes your bait!! Tight Lines - leon

Phone, Over here, a rod has eyes for the line to pass through and is used with a reel. A pole has no eyes, and the line is attached directly to the tip (or actually to a length of elastic which emerges from the tip). A rod is used for casting long distances and for battling with powerful fish. Delicate bait presentation, in exactly the right spot is a problem, especially if the wind is blowing your line about.. A pole (which can be in excess of 15metres long and cost several thousand pounds) is used to lower and hold the bait in a static position at distance. The elastic is used to play the fish and the fish is bought shorewards, by unshipping sections of the pole. Great for fishing matches on canals and stillwaters for smallish fish, but a bit of a problem when a 30lber takes your bait!! Tight Lines - leon

Anyone setting up a fishery in an area populated by otters needs to bear in mind the cost of protecting stocks and ensure that the needs of the existing wildlife come first. But that is not the situation many fisheries find themselves in (and many fisheries are run by clubs, not in it for the profit, but financed out of the members subs). Fisheries have long been established in areas where otters have not been present for many decades, and given the changed environment and increasing urbanisation of those areas, would probably have never been repopulated naturally. I have no problem at all with a buch of otter enthusiasts, gaining control of an area of land, fencing it off and releasing otters. The problem is that the enthusiasts have released into the 'wild' without any consultation with those whose properties will be affected, with no consideration for individuals, organisations and businesses that will be affected, and with no proper environmental assessment to ensure that the new (long otterless) habitat is able to sustain the introduced otter population without significant impact. If they had to personally bear the costs of their releases, I doubt they would have gone ahead. But no, others have to bear the costs and aggravations of their actions - not their problem, tough luck! That hardly seems fair, and if you were struggling to build your life's dream of owning a fishery, invested many thousands in buying stock (large carp may cost in the region of £300 per fish), and someone came along and released an otter into your water, would you accept it philosophically? It's real people's lives and aspirations that are being threatened by uncontrolled releases into territories previously long barren of otters. If society (or a proportion of society)wants otters re-introduced to an area, they should bear the costs, not just shrug it off when they make others become the innocent victims of their actions. Fortunately, through the Specialist Anglers' Alliance, and through the huge personal efforts of Chris Burt these problems are now being recognised by the responsible authorities within the otter release movement, and slow progress is being made. As to otter fencing. Have you any idea of the cost of fencing off (say) a forty acre lake? It's going to take many years to recoup such an 'investment', and many clubs and fisheries (usually run by a bloke and his dog) are struggling to make ends meet now. Coming from the populace South-east I have trouble getting my head around the whole concept of otter fencing. For a start, the land around most lakes I know are criss-crossed by public rights of way, and there is a vehemenent lobby protesting at any attempted obstruction. Getting the local parish council to approve work to put in a path for disabled anglers is a monumental task. I simply can't imagine them approving the fencing off of a lake! And if a fence does go up, it will soon be down. Torn down by trial bikers, or simple vandalism for the 'fun' of it! Tight Lines - leon

Anyone setting up a fishery in an area populated by otters needs to bear in mind the cost of protecting stocks and ensure that the needs of the existing wildlife come first. But that is not the situation many fisheries find themselves in (and many fisheries are run by clubs, not in it for the profit, but financed out of the members subs). Fisheries have long been established in areas where otters have not been present for many decades, and given the changed environment and increasing urbanisation of those areas, would probably have never been repopulated naturally. I have no problem at all with a buch of otter enthusiasts, gaining control of an area of land, fencing it off and releasing otters. The problem is that the enthusiasts have released into the 'wild' without any consultation with those whose properties will be affected, with no consideration for individuals, organisations and businesses that will be affected, and with no proper environmental assessment to ensure that the new (long otterless) habitat is able to sustain the introduced otter population without significant impact. If they had to personally bear the costs of their releases, I doubt they would have gone ahead. But no, others have to bear the costs and aggravations of their actions - not their problem, tough luck! That hardly seems fair, and if you were struggling to build your life's dream of owning a fishery, invested many thousands in buying stock (large carp may cost in the region of £300 per fish), and someone came along and released an otter into your water, would you accept it philosophically? It's real people's lives and aspirations that are being threatened by uncontrolled releases into territories previously long barren of otters. If society (or a proportion of society)wants otters re-introduced to an area, they should bear the costs, not just shrug it off when they make others become the innocent victims of their actions. Fortunately, through the Specialist Anglers' Alliance, and through the huge personal efforts of Chris Burt these problems are now being recognised by the responsible authorities within the otter release movement, and slow progress is being made. As to otter fencing. Have you any idea of the cost of fencing off (say) a forty acre lake? It's going to take many years to recoup such an 'investment', and many clubs and fisheries (usually run by a bloke and his dog) are struggling to make ends meet now. Coming from the populace South-east I have trouble getting my head around the whole concept of otter fencing. For a start, the land around most lakes I know are criss-crossed by public rights of way, and there is a vehemenent lobby protesting at any attempted obstruction. Getting the local parish council to approve work to put in a path for disabled anglers is a monumental task. I simply can't imagine them approving the fencing off of a lake! And if a fence does go up, it will soon be down. Torn down by trial bikers, or simple vandalism for the 'fun' of it! Tight Lines - leon