Vagabond

Always wondered about the Bishop's Finger. Was he signifying dismissal at an ecclesiastical cricket match? Was it an admonitiary finger waggled at the congregation from the pulpit? Was it an unclerical response during a road-rage incident? Or was it yet another disgraceful episode involving said cleric and an actress?

Always wondered about the Bishop's Finger. Was he signifying dismissal at an ecclesiastical cricket match? Was it an admonitiary finger waggled at the congregation from the pulpit? Was it an unclerical response during a road-rage incident? Or was it yet another disgraceful episode involving said cleric and an actress?

When some so-called "animal rights" people released large numbers of mink into the wild, they were quite rightly condemned as irresponsible. So what is different about releasing otters to the wild? (apart from the otters' superior PR, courtesy of Henry Williamson, Gavin Maxwell, Bill Travers and Virginia McKenna, as already suggested by Trent Barbeller) BTW - it is not a valid argument to suggest mink is an "alien" species - European mink and American mink are related as sub-species, and European mink were once found in Britain. It is not as if we are short of genuine wild otters - we have had them in the wilds of Sussex throughout (and of course before) my lifetime, but at a level the streams of the High Weald can support. Putting more otters into the environment simply means some have to go looking for alternative food supplies - like angling club waters, and hen houses. A farmer friend who had many times sat up for and shot predators on his chickens told me that for every dozen foxes shot, there are three or four badgers and a couple of otters. Releasing animals to the wild without thought as to their food supply is irresponsible - and although there are half-joking references to wolves, bears and wild boar on this thread, there are people out there who are quite prepared to put wolves back into the wild in Britain. One of their number, when asked about the problem with wolves vis-a-vis sheep, suggested that any farmer losing sheep would be offered free counselling. Think about it - "FREE COUNSELLING" (expletive deleted) - that shows the sort of mind-set these people have. Mind you, wolves are much more exciting to hunt than foxes. Traditional, too. Did you know that a huntsman urging his pack into a covert to draw for foxes uses the words "Lou in there, Lou in there!" The phrase is from the days when wolves were hunted in Britain - "Loupe" being the French for wolf.

When some so-called "animal rights" people released large numbers of mink into the wild, they were quite rightly condemned as irresponsible. So what is different about releasing otters to the wild? (apart from the otters' superior PR, courtesy of Henry Williamson, Gavin Maxwell, Bill Travers and Virginia McKenna, as already suggested by Trent Barbeller) BTW - it is not a valid argument to suggest mink is an "alien" species - European mink and American mink are related as sub-species, and European mink were once found in Britain. It is not as if we are short of genuine wild otters - we have had them in the wilds of Sussex throughout (and of course before) my lifetime, but at a level the streams of the High Weald can support. Putting more otters into the environment simply means some have to go looking for alternative food supplies - like angling club waters, and hen houses. A farmer friend who had many times sat up for and shot predators on his chickens told me that for every dozen foxes shot, there are three or four badgers and a couple of otters. Releasing animals to the wild without thought as to their food supply is irresponsible - and although there are half-joking references to wolves, bears and wild boar on this thread, there are people out there who are quite prepared to put wolves back into the wild in Britain. One of their number, when asked about the problem with wolves vis-a-vis sheep, suggested that any farmer losing sheep would be offered free counselling. Think about it - "FREE COUNSELLING" (expletive deleted) - that shows the sort of mind-set these people have. Mind you, wolves are much more exciting to hunt than foxes. Traditional, too. Did you know that a huntsman urging his pack into a covert to draw for foxes uses the words "Lou in there, Lou in there!" The phrase is from the days when wolves were hunted in Britain - "Loupe" being the French for wolf.

Swim 13 eh? - 13 is a LUCKY number for me (my birth date and the wife's birth date) Is that swim where I think it is ? ie the far end (behind the island) at Mallard ? Nice fish, anyway. Congratulations

Swim 13 eh? - 13 is a LUCKY number for me (my birth date and the wife's birth date) Is that swim where I think it is ? ie the far end (behind the island) at Mallard ? Nice fish, anyway. Congratulations

Managed 0.05 at third attempt - easier than striking dace on the stick float and perhaps not too bad for an old boy of near 68. But I'm quitting whilst still ahead!

Managed 0.05 at third attempt - easier than striking dace on the stick float and perhaps not too bad for an old boy of near 68. But I'm quitting whilst still ahead!

Fairly tame Elton - but the tail is armed with sharp denticles and sometimes lashes about a bit. Also, male skate have very sharp thorny patches on the wings, and sometimes they flap a bit. The smaller males are in general a bit more stroppy in the boat, but provided everyone uses a bit of common sense (like DON'T try to get hold of the tail) there should be no problems.

Cor, the systems torn me piccy up Try Again

Heres what happens if all goes to plan http://www.carndearg.net/anglersnet/

If you are going out with Ronnie, just use the gear he provides, fish the way he suggests, and you are in with a chance even on your first trip. The problem guys are those that think (usually wrongly) they know about skate, and therefore don't listen to Ronnie - and thus diminish their chances as well as everyone else's in the boat. Skate fishing is a bit different from the usual sea-fishing trip, but you will soon get the idea - Ronnie gets skate most days in August - sometimes several - no chance of getting bored, especially if its your line the skate is on. and yes, contact Davy Holt's website, and think about skate conservation as there is a limited population around Oban. Ronnie insists all skate go back.

Having copies of both "The Arte of Angling" and "The Compleat Angler", I am able to offer a few points that may be of interest to our angling historians out there. Firstly, the style of the two books, which are BOTH in the form of a discourse between Piscator and Viator., suggest that Walton had certainly read "The Arte of Angling". He even used the same names for the characters, but changed Viator to Venator in his second edition, and by the fifth edition had brought in other characters, such as Auceps (a falconer), Peter and Coridon (anglers) a milkmaid and her daughter Maudlin. So he certainly copied Samuel's idea - a good idea too, with a delightful style. There are certain passages, particularly instructions how to breed maggots, and how to prepare malted corn for the hook, that are almost identical in the two books, which suggests Walton had "The Arte of Angling" by him when he wrote. But why shouldn't he ? These passages are both a bit like recipes - the detail has to be right - so why not quote it ? Admittedly, Walton made no acknowledgement of Samuel and some might criticise that. However, Walton does acknowledge four other angling writers (Mascall 1590, Dennys 1613, Markham 1614 and Barker 1651), so perhaps that is an oversight (or possibly religious prejudice - Parson Samuel was some sort of religious extremist) Interestingly, Walton 's suggested trout flies are similar to those mentioned in "The Treatyse" of 1496, but without acknowledgement again. However, I think those patterns were pretty widely known by Walton's time - if he had access to Dame Juliana's book, I don't think he could have resisted the details re legering dead herrings for pike. As it was, dead herrings were not mentioned after 1496 until the Taylors re-invented and popularised the method in the 1950s - almost 500 years to the day from the first handwritten version of "The Treatyse" in 1450 - now THAT'S something OP-JB, that should make the back of your neck prickle! However, to be fair to Walton, we should note that Samuel mentions only the following nine fish:- Pike, Perch, Ruffe, Roach, Dace, Chub, Bream, Carp, and Gudgeon. Walton mentions all of these, PLUS Trout, Grayling, Salmon, Eels, Lampreys, Tench, Barbel, Minnow, Loach, Bleak, Rudd, Bullhead, Stickleback, Gwyniad, Char and Flounder. A total of twenty-five fish. My personal view is that Walton borrowed freely from several of the seven known angling writers who preceded him - and there is nothing wrong in that - try writing about fly fishing for river trout without using material already covered by Maryatt, Halford, Sawyer or Skues ! Or in modern terms - quoting one source is plagiarism, quoting several sources is research. Talking about fly fishing reminds me that in the fifth Edition of "The Compleat Angler" when Charles Cotton enters with part II, HE starts with a dialogue between Piscator and Viator (not Venator - as used by Walton in that edition) Hope this is of interest Chris and others - the reprint of the Arte of Angling (Fly Fishers Classic Library) also contains fascinating material on how the Author was traced and identified -recommended reading!

Having copies of both "The Arte of Angling" and "The Compleat Angler", I am able to offer a few points that may be of interest to our angling historians out there. Firstly, the style of the two books, which are BOTH in the form of a discourse between Piscator and Viator., suggest that Walton had certainly read "The Arte of Angling". He even used the same names for the characters, but changed Viator to Venator in his second edition, and by the fifth edition had brought in other characters, such as Auceps (a falconer), Peter and Coridon (anglers) a milkmaid and her daughter Maudlin. So he certainly copied Samuel's idea - a good idea too, with a delightful style. There are certain passages, particularly instructions how to breed maggots, and how to prepare malted corn for the hook, that are almost identical in the two books, which suggests Walton had "The Arte of Angling" by him when he wrote. But why shouldn't he ? These passages are both a bit like recipes - the detail has to be right - so why not quote it ? Admittedly, Walton made no acknowledgement of Samuel and some might criticise that. However, Walton does acknowledge four other angling writers (Mascall 1590, Dennys 1613, Markham 1614 and Barker 1651), so perhaps that is an oversight (or possibly religious prejudice - Parson Samuel was some sort of religious extremist) Interestingly, Walton 's suggested trout flies are similar to those mentioned in "The Treatyse" of 1496, but without acknowledgement again. However, I think those patterns were pretty widely known by Walton's time - if he had access to Dame Juliana's book, I don't think he could have resisted the details re legering dead herrings for pike. As it was, dead herrings were not mentioned after 1496 until the Taylors re-invented and popularised the method in the 1950s - almost 500 years to the day from the first handwritten version of "The Treatyse" in 1450 - now THAT'S something OP-JB, that should make the back of your neck prickle! However, to be fair to Walton, we should note that Samuel mentions only the following nine fish:- Pike, Perch, Ruffe, Roach, Dace, Chub, Bream, Carp, and Gudgeon. Walton mentions all of these, PLUS Trout, Grayling, Salmon, Eels, Lampreys, Tench, Barbel, Minnow, Loach, Bleak, Rudd, Bullhead, Stickleback, Gwyniad, Char and Flounder. A total of twenty-five fish. My personal view is that Walton borrowed freely from several of the seven known angling writers who preceded him - and there is nothing wrong in that - try writing about fly fishing for river trout without using material already covered by Maryatt, Halford, Sawyer or Skues ! Or in modern terms - quoting one source is plagiarism, quoting several sources is research. Talking about fly fishing reminds me that in the fifth Edition of "The Compleat Angler" when Charles Cotton enters with part II, HE starts with a dialogue between Piscator and Viator (not Venator - as used by Walton in that edition) Hope this is of interest Chris and others - the reprint of the Arte of Angling (Fly Fishers Classic Library) also contains fascinating material on how the Author was traced and identified -recommended reading!

It may be a "rare" manufacturer, but I've seen reels similar to that recently for around a tenner. My first reels I made myself (sent you a picture of one for your birthday Spindle ) My first "real" reel was a wooden centrepin like the one illustrated - aquired it about 1943/4 in exchange for a second-hand cricket ball which had cost me a twelve-sided threepenny bit (when they were still legal tender). It was a bargain then, and although cracked and repaired I still give it an occasional outing after tench.

It may be a "rare" manufacturer, but I've seen reels similar to that recently for around a tenner. My first reels I made myself (sent you a picture of one for your birthday Spindle ) My first "real" reel was a wooden centrepin like the one illustrated - aquired it about 1943/4 in exchange for a second-hand cricket ball which had cost me a twelve-sided threepenny bit (when they were still legal tender). It was a bargain then, and although cracked and repaired I still give it an occasional outing after tench.

Perhaps they are those who don't use it themselves, but nevertheless want to ban others from using it. Analagous to anglers who don't use livebaits, (or keepnets, or barbed hooks, or boilies, or pendulum casting, or any other method you can think of) but nevertheless want to ban others from doing so. The world is full of such people. OTOH, as Newt suggests, this drug has a bad effect on judgement - which might lead some, when under the influence of it, to experiment with more dangerous substances - substances which in normal circumstances they would have the good sense to avoid.

Phone, just think yourselves lucky I don't get to Austin until next month - otherwise you'd have two Brits at once to contend with. BTW Thanks for all the advice re itineraries, steam locos etc. We have decided to rent a car in Austin, fish around there a while, then drive Big Bend, New Mexico and Colorado, fish the St Vrain and a few other rivers, and leave the car in Denver and fly home from there. Have read all John Geirach's books, and now know most of them by heart Have located a guide in Austin to take me out on Lake Austin where there are plenty of alligator gars (this is from one of his clients - not the guide, so it sounds promising). Apparently Travis is more renowned for the long-nosed gar. Once the thread on Texas Fishing Forum got going it seems everyone in Texas wants to take me fishing! There's talk of grinnel, stripeys, and even paddlefish - it sounds as if I will have to hide in the bottom of the boat to put the bait on

Phone, just think yourselves lucky I don't get to Austin until next month - otherwise you'd have two Brits at once to contend with. BTW Thanks for all the advice re itineraries, steam locos etc. We have decided to rent a car in Austin, fish around there a while, then drive Big Bend, New Mexico and Colorado, fish the St Vrain and a few other rivers, and leave the car in Denver and fly home from there. Have read all John Geirach's books, and now know most of them by heart Have located a guide in Austin to take me out on Lake Austin where there are plenty of alligator gars (this is from one of his clients - not the guide, so it sounds promising). Apparently Travis is more renowned for the long-nosed gar. Once the thread on Texas Fishing Forum got going it seems everyone in Texas wants to take me fishing! There's talk of grinnel, stripeys, and even paddlefish - it sounds as if I will have to hide in the bottom of the boat to put the bait on

The same goes for baseball caps with manufacturers' names on them. Also, I notice many young anglers are unsure which way round to wear them. I solved the problem years ago by wearing a deerstalker - peaks fore and aft. :cool:

The same goes for baseball caps with manufacturers' names on them. Also, I notice many young anglers are unsure which way round to wear them. I solved the problem years ago by wearing a deerstalker - peaks fore and aft. :cool:

May she rest in peace, and let us not forget she was a salmon angler, and a good one at that.........

May she rest in peace, and let us not forget she was a salmon angler, and a good one at that.........

Well done (pun intended) Alan! The smell is persistent, but pleasant. When they have this National No Smoking Day, I always make a point of starting the day with a kipper or other smoked fish for breakfast Thinking back to my schooldays, if smoking had been compulsory and Shakespeare banned (instead of t'other way round) I might have turned out as a literate non-smoker

Alan - at a pinch (pun intended) you could leave the asafoetida out - but make sure the garlic is not stinted - the two flavours are close, but with subtle differences.