andy_youngs
-
Posts
618 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by andy_youngs
-
-
thanks mate, just the sort of help I hoped to get
-
'the angling trust', weren't my idea btw.
Doh ... OK, bit of a Homer Simpson moment there. I think my immediate concern is that there seems to be no central transparent register which records the numbers of fish that are artificially stocked into our freshwater waterways. If my holiday plans materialise, then I will be visiting the Tyne catchment shortly to fish for salmon (or possibly barbel). This is a river system which has historically boasted both a barbel population and a salmon population. What I'd really like to know is to what extent the elevation of this catchment to the most profilic salmon fishery in England is a result of artificial stocking.
I think this is vital information, that every taxpayer should want to find out.
I made a freedom of information request to the EA a few years ago, and the answer came back that there is no central register for fish introductions.
So I then made a freedom of information request to the Government. I did eventually get a reply from the fisheries minister, George Eustace, but quite frankly it came at a stage in the negotiation when I was so fed up with the whole business that I have not persued it.
That might change .....
-
1
-
-
My understanding is that the Tyne is the most productive salmon river in England at the moment. The Wear not far behind. So I thought I'd pay a visit. As soon as this heat wave ends, and the rains begin, I'll find a remote place to camp and give both rivers a trial. Any advice would be gratefully received.
-
My point of view and frustration for ALL anglers is that we have an angling organisation TAT
Who are TAT? I've just googled it, but drawn a blank
-
I think I'm getting to grips with your point of view Barry. You're frustrated because the EA are imposing ideotic rules over elver harvesting in the west of the country. I'm frustrated because the EA have been systematically introducing non-native fish into the rivers in the east of the country for commercial gain.
And the AT do **** all. Like you, I have no desire to join that organisation.
-
1
-
-
Andy,
Looks like that would do the trick.
Phone
Edit: Ohh, I forgot my question. Is "river ownership" the same in the EU as it is in the UK. That "issue" of ownership is a real stumbling block. I mean, looks like it is what it is!
Phone
In my experience, it's unwise to try and prevent a citizen from navigating a river in France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Scotland, or any other country in the EU with the exception of England and Wales.
.
In England and Wales, it's permissable to be abusive to strangers, so long as you have landowners consent.
As far as the Habitats Directive is concerned, most countries in the EU generally try and avoid complliance with the content because it's inconvenient and it costs a hell of a lot of money..
So nothing ever changes.
-
Interesting link Phone. No the UK doesn't have this kind of document on it's statute books. Our laws tend to be specific to either England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Just following up on that, I guess the closest thing we have is the Habitats Directive. It's supposed to be a blanket legislation accross all of Europe, but of course it's application tends to be rather more selective than that.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0043:EN:HTML
-
Nick,
Does the UK have this kind of law? Something similar is in most states over here.
http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/NEstaterecliability.pdf
Phone
Interesting link Phone. No the UK doesn't have this kind of document on it's statute books. Our laws tend to be specific to either England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.
-
Andy,
Maybe - you could be right. As for me the most important 3 reasons we fought it out was so we could.
Floss
Talk to strangers unprompted
Drink milk
Far more profound than you suggest.
Phone
Phone, the US fought it's war of indepence because it had to. It was nothing to do with dental floss, milk or talking nicely to strangers (although I accept these have been of unanticipated benificial consequence).
-
it's like apples and ducks.
For goodness sake Phone, it's 'apples and pears'. There's no such comparing apples and ducks. It's like comparing ducks and geese. Apples and pears are completely different.
-
We didn't really get rid of it. We simply never had it to begin with.
If we had your population density, we might have different rules as well.
You did have it all to begin with. You had it right there in the palm of your hand. Your ancestors fought so that you didn't have to be dictated to by a class of ruling landowners in England. Don't deny your heritage Newt.
-
so's carp.
Please Barry, Corrmorants feed on many sources, dead carp and barbel amongst them. But it's unhelpful to raise the notion of feeding them to these preditors deliibrately.
I'd prefer a balanced 'non-personal' discussion if possible.
-
Andy if you want a lift trying to get pellets banned, I might help, but don't ask me to paddle down the Wensum.
No, I don't want to get pellets banned. And don't worry, I wont ask you to paddle the Wensum with me. I'd like to take you, but I've already spoken to the powers that be, and I'm afraid the truth is that you're not welcome on that river.
-
andy_y
This entire thread is the same song different day isn't it?
Do you (in fact) have any idea it your canoe bumps into a log and you die is the owner liable?
It is well documented I've known about the log.
Suppose you sink a thousand Coors beer cans (the shiney silver ones) and spoil the aesthetics of the stream. Can the EA fine me?
Phone
(Remember, in the US it is a non-discussion. No one owns a stream or river unless it begins and ends on the same property). Water rights will be the source of our next civil war if we make it that far.
I'm glad it was you that brought the subject of civil war up rather than me. I agree, we don't want to go there. By opening this thread I expressly requested that this discussion should not be allowed to become personal.
The Environment Agency in the UK has a different approach to the Environment Agency in the US.
On this side of the pond, our institutions seem happy to spend vast sums of money preventing the great unwashed from navigating rivers which flow through private estates
I reallly envy the yanks, having got rid of all that useless baggage several hundred years ago.
-
Andy_y
Are the riparian owners liable for your safety?
Phone
Only Benyon. He's a Minister of the Queen, and he's solemnly sworn to protect my safety. I'm not sure quite when it was writtten down for the first time. My guess would be sometime around Magna Carta..
-
But Dave, Andy and his mates aren't like that. They have nothing but respect for the countryside (sssi sites) and the law. What possible harm could it do to just let unlimited numbers of them do as they please?
It's true that we have respect for the countryside. The video you have linked to was of a paddle down the Wensum during the closed fishing season. We went at that time of year so as to avoid conflict with local anglers. I would encourage others to do the same. It's great fun, and not nearly as damaging as stocking an SAC / SSSI river with non-native fish and then saturating it with high protein pellets.
-
andy_y,
I'm not being controntational, at least not trying. I have never received a "good or bad" answer to the word "raparian" as it applies in the UK. The EA and dictionalry says, """"Law. a person who owns land on the bank of a natural watercourse or body of water."""" The EA (in 2013) says the UK has "Raparian owners" aside from what the EA says (which is full and total responsibility execpt as noted). What does that mean (to you and canoests). I don't know how it could be more clear??
Also, you are as bad as your accusors. You respond to Sportsman with, "it's not true". You sure? 100%? Maybe you would change that statement to the "majority"? Should that be true - how many irresponsible canoes does it take to turn 150 shorebound anglers into anti-furnaces.
Phone
It's 'riparian', not raparian. It means the owner of a river bed. If a landowner owns both banks of the river then some people think he has complete ownership of the river course, including the naviagation rights. Similarly, if I own one bank of a river, and you own the other bank, then our respective ownerships extend to half way accross the river course. So if we band together, we can theoritically try to stop people navigating the river. Quite why anyone would want to behave in such an anti-social manner is beyond me ... I suggest you ask the Angling Trust.
And yes, I am 100% positive that Sportsman is wrong when he accuses all canoeists of environmental thuggery. There may be a small element of anti-social types within the canoeing community, just as there are in all sports, but to accuse 100% of them accross the board is just plain wrong.
-
They can acknowledge it existence without wanting to encourage it.
I have no axe to grind in the UK anymore. I don't live there.
When I did live i Scotland all of my personal experience of canoeists on rivers were negative.
You seem to want to portray canoeists as these gentle people, slipping silently down the river, disturbing no-one and causing no upset.
The reality is a bunch of thugs screaming and shouting to each other, abusing other users, coming ashore on private property, lighting fires and leaving litter. Parking your cars and trailers on private property, blocking field gateways and generally showing no respect for anyone or anything.
Maybe you will be granted greater access when you demonstrate that you deserve it.
Oh sportsman, that's just a vitriolic outpouring. You've labled canoeists as a bnunch of environmental thugs who are intent on wreaking havoc upon the countrysite, but it's not true.
-
1
-
-
Ok Andy we will leave out the bit were you use your canoe to trespass, party and light fires on other peoples land if it makes you feel better.
When did the private land owners give the waterways to the citizens?
I've never partied and lit fires on other peoples property without their permission. I wish you wouldn't misrepresent me in public like that (complaint to the mod, please caution this person).
You ask when did private land owners give the waterways to the citizens. My understanding is that the landowners never owned them in the first place. But they tried to claim them them as such in 1830
-
I asked for my topic to be closed andy because it went personal. .Unfortunately I made the mistake of being dragged in. As opposed to keeping to the known facts.
I'll try not to make the same mistake again. It's relevant though because I reckon the Recreational Sea Anglers have got quite a bit in common with Canoe England at the moment. I do a bit of sea fishing, and I'd like to join the RSA, but I won't if they're affiliated to AT. It's all very confusing.
The AT's latest letter to Canoe England strikes me as akin to trying to put a fire out with petrol.
-
Could be that this is an angling forum.
Anglers voting for canoe access would be like turkeys voting for Christmas
Agreed. This is an angling forum. You could also argue that turkeys denying that Christmas exist is like ostriches sticking their head's in the sand.
-
"Anywhere that Joe Public has been allowed, has been ruined by Joe Public." ...... Does that include this forum?
-
Is it possible to have a sensible discussion about this, without the subject getting locked? I am a keen angler that also believes passionately that citizens have a right to navigate their waterways..
But there seems to be a faction within the angling community that deliberately tries to spoil any meaningful debate, so the mod's end up locking it.
I like to think of myself as an honest and reasonable person. Generally, I pay my taxes, and argue my way in the world. So why are the threads about navigation rights getting locked?
-
Most coarse fish may use plants to lay their eggs on, but I think if you look at river coarse fish that live in the faster flowing river that are relevant to this topic, I think that is far from true. Dace, chub, barbel,.... are gravel spawners.
As far as I can see canoeists already get a very good deal, better than anglers anyway. There must be thousand of miles of free navigable water and if they sort it with the land owners first (like anglers have to) they can go where ever they like, but they don't need a licence. Plus no closed season for them on rivers.
Personally I think people like Mr. Youngs and his friends already have enough opportunity to break the law and do how they please. Don't see why we should give them any more.
this debate has gone so far, and also encouraged that it runs to more than a few pages.
I'm surprised the debate has run this far (6 + pages). I've skimmed through it all. A few offensive posts but nothing that I can get too worked up about (life's too short).
Nothing constructive about Benyon's lamentable efforts to bring the canoeing and angling factions together, nor anything tangable which explains why he is preventing me from paddling through his private estate on the River Kennet.
are jellied eels coming back
in Conservation & Politics
Posted · Edited by andy_youngs
I think the real concern, is that there are a great many anglers out there that confuse conservation with artificial stocking of freshwater game fish such as salmon, trout, barbel etc.
They assume (not unreasonably) that because they suddenly start catching more, or bigger, fish, then that must logically indicate a healthier ecology.
But of course, this is a smokescreen.
For me, one of the saddest consequences has been the national recognition of a record wild barbel of 21lb 1oz from the Upper Ouse. But that is not a wild fish, and it robs our children of the opporturnity to try and outwit a worthy quarry on its own terms: all the mystic is gone: the only way to catch a fish like that these days is to grow it in a stock pond.
I'm very sad, I'm very concerned, and I hope very much that it doesn't happen to the atlantic salmon.