andy_youngs

Well I'm afraid I voted UKIP for the selfish reason that they were the only party who offered to let my local pub open a ventilated smoking room (even though 90% of the locals smoke anyway). World wars, earthsquakes, tsunamis, plagues and tempest ... bring it on .... seems to me it doesn't matter much who's in charge. So I'll continue to vote for who-ever allows me to enjoy a pint and a pipe / cigar / ciggie in comfort.

Peter Aldous has given this speech, which I think is commendable : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7Cj8zXckOc

Careful Captain, the yakkers have a mafia too, and you can bet your bottom dollar that those guys aren't scared of you ....

The main reason for the disgruntlement is that the AT are complicit in keeping many of our inland waterways closed down to canoeists and kyakers, whilst charging for the privilege of being a self-appointed representitive body. Quite frankly, I am appalled that the AT has been complicit in this affair. I think it demonstrates quite staggering level of insensitivity and indifference, and a complete failure to understand or address the issues.

Yeah, I know Rob Glynn. He can organise a good holiday for you. It will be through one of these companies : http://www.tigerfishcamp.com/uk/index.php http://www.go-congo.com/ You can book direct, but it's sometimes better to go through a UK agent, especially in a place like the Congo. Just a word of advice, make sure you get proper insurance cover.

It would be a shame if this thread was allowed to just fade away. It started in response to the Angling Trust's failed attempts to get an internet forum off the ground. Over the 56 odd pages of discussion it's covered some good ground. I guess all good things have to come to an end, but I'm not sure that we've quite reached the end of the road on this topic yet .....

As some of you know I went after goliath a few years ago, and was lucky enough to land a small one. I hooked much larger fish but didn't manage to land a big one. In the process, I sought the help of a witchdocter, and paid handsomely for that privilege. I found the broadcast very enjoyable, and the fact that it took him over 3 weeks to land a decent fish is about right. But I'm not sure about it his tactics, he should have been using 3 rods, rather than 1, and mono main line rather than braid (far more foregiving). Longer steel traces with at least 5 trebles attached to each bait. I also don't agree with going after them on a catch and release basis. This is not catch & release territory. Go to the Congo by all means, but I'm afraid it's hook and cook ... otherwise you will end up getting eaten by something that's bigger than you .....

Not to mention the non-members who have yet to pay for a license

That's great Barry, nice to see you exercising your legal rights. But I think it's a bit unfair to expect to receive all discussion documents over an eight month period at the first time of asking. Ask for them by all means, but give the guys a chance, and don't be surprised if you get stonewalled in the first instance ...

Me thinks your being a tad presumptious there teme man, I may fish with a maggot but I can assure you that the bread paste balls are attached to a steel hook with a chemically sharpened barb.

I'm sure these would help (fished on a hair rig) : http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/forums/Bread-p...l&p=3222449

Agreed Sportsman, but I can also see a case for only farming species which are native to their natural range. In the British Isles, species such as the red fox / red squirrel / otter. In that way, if there is an accidental release, then the ecology of the surrounding countryside will not be completelly destroyed. The good news from East Anglia is that otters and mink don't seem to co-exist very easily. Apparently when mink come into contact with otters they start behaving in a very bizarre mannner. They stop hunting at there preferred times of the 24 hour cycle, and this does not lend itself to the survival of the species. Personally, I don't particularly like either the otters or the mink. But at least otters have got a right to be in both Donegal and East Anglia, as decreed by history. The mink have no such claim.

The absurdity of it is that fur farming is only illegal in the UK. In the US, Canada, Scandavania, Russia, and most other countries, it's perfectly legal, and will probably remain so for many years to come. That's because in these places fur is seen as a legitimate resource to harvest from an animal, same as meat. So what if it's generated off farms rather than wild animals? I don't care It's certainly no excuse for releasing a non native preditor en masse into an environmentally sensitive habitat. Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/loc...r#ixzz11oh32JTn

There seems to be some sort of problem with the edp link. I hope they haven't taken it down ..

plus they ar reputed to taste nice, to both eels and humans ...

This is the place Steve : http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/ If nothing else it makes it awkward them. And once you open a can of worms you never know what will be revealed ....

I've had a reply from the Ministry of Justice. It appears that they don't hold the records which we are seeking, and I have therefore been directed elswhere. 'Elsewhere' for me means the Environment Agency. In this way I feel pretty sure that I can get visibilty of the bits relating to my dispute on the Wensum. Your dispute down in Weymouth however is a different matter. I'm sure that the issues which people are upset about could and should have been discussed between the harbour authority and the EA, and that the EA could and should have records of the minutes. If that is the case then we are entitled to visibility of it. Good luck back at ya barry ...

Thanks for providing a detailed report of the match John. It's interesting for me because the BCTAC have snapped up the fishing rights on several pieces of common land in the centre of Bungay in the last few years, most notably Falcon Meadow and the pit on Bungay Common. The reason they cited for doing this at the time was to stop match anglers from muscling out local guys on Saturday / Sunday afternoons. Personally, I never really bought into that argument; like most local people, I just like to see these resources being enjoyed by others, and I'm glad that you and your mates had a good day out. Hope you made it to the Locks for a pint of Canary. Andy

Don't believe you, I've just put the following request in (I'll let you know the response in due course) Andy From: Andrew Youngs To: data.access@justice.gsi.gov.uk Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 10:04 PM Subject: Freedom of Information Request; River Wensum & Weymouth Harbour Dear Sir, I would like to make a freedom of information request regarding the following documents : Meeting minutes of the Wensum Fisheries Action Plan Group, complete history please. Information available care of Mr Roy Church (Chairman of the goup and also Vice President of the Norfolk Anglers Conservation Association), Norwich, Norfolk, PO Box 61, NR17 2AL Meeting minutes of the Christchurch (Weymouth Harbour) Sea Committee, complete history please. Information request on behalf of citizens, Mr B Luxton, and Mr S Coppelo. Requisit information available from Mr R Allen, Chair of the Weymouth harbour committee 13 Custom House Quay,Weymouth, Dorset DT4 8BG. Many thanks, Andrew Youngs

The sea committee meeting minutes which you refer to should be public information anyway, same as the meeting minutes of the Wensum Fisheries Action Plan Group. You have evidently paid the AT to provide you with information which you were already entitled to - next time, I suggest you put a freedom of information request in. I'm not in the least bit surprised that the Trust don't wish to deal with my complaints. As far as I'm concerned they're misleading people by selling membership on the grounds that the money will be used to prevent 'illegal' canoeing in accordance with their published policy. They are in fact cynically deceiving people in order to boost their membership. I don't know whether other anglers out there really care when they're being lied to. I know I do. That's why I won't be joining the AT until such time as my concerns have been properly addressed. In the meantime, it appears that Mark Lloyd is too busy to deal with it ......

I tried to pm it to you Barry, but it is doesn't seem to show up in my outbox. Maybe it's too long? Anyway, you're probably right. Needless to say, some will find it a bit controversial, but this is the politics section of the forum, and why should it only be visible to people who have access to microsoft word? On the basis that it's still just about a free country, here goes. I suggest you scroll to the bottom and work you way up to the top :- From: [Andrew Youngs] To: [Mark Lloyd] Cc: [Chairman of the Regional Ecology, Fisheries and Recreation Advisory Committee] Sent: 15 July 2010 22:49 Subject: Re: River Wensum That's fine Mark, no problem, please prioritise communications between your members. In the process, I hope you spare a thought for non-members. All best wishes, Andrew ----- Original Message ----- From: [Mark Lloyd] To: [Andrew Youngs] Cc: [Chairman of the Regional Ecology, Fisheries and Recreation Advisory Committee] Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 9:55 PM Subject: RE: River Wensum Andrew, Our policy is based on expert legal advice. We are aware of the research by Douglas Caffyn. I’m sorry you’re not going to join to support our work. I’m afraid I am very busy and have to prioritise communication with members. I am therefore not able to continue this discussion with you. All best wishes, Mark From: [Andrew Youngs] To: [Mark Lloyd] Cc: [Chairman of the Regional Ecology, Fisheries and Recreation Advisory Committee] Sent: 15 July 2010 19:44 Subject: Re: River Wensum Dear Mark, Thanks for below email. I don't necessarily agree that someones got to join the Trust for their views to be taken account of. I suggest that if someone's got a valid point of view then it is incumbent on the Trust to listen, irrespective of whether they are members or not. For that same reason I do not agree with the Angling Trust's decision to allow only Trust members to post on it's internet forum. I think it stifles open debate and undermines the whole point of an internet forum. At the end of day, if someone posts inflammatory remarks on an internet forum then you are perfectly at liberty to ban them; whether they're members of the Angling Trust should not enter into it. I'm aware of the Trust's policy on inland navigation. This is a significantly more moderate stance than previous statements, which is obviously welcome. However I still find aspects the present policy objectionable, most notably the follow remarks : The Trust does not advocate navigation or canoeing agreements on rivers: i) Where there is potential for environmental damage to the river; ii) On those small rivers where there is likely to be a significant risk of conflict between paddlers and anglers; iii) On those where riparian owners, whose permission needs to be sought in law for access agreements, would suffer unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of their property In setting up access agreements, it is important to draw attention to the difference between permission to gain access across land to a river (for launching etc) and permission to navigate. Clearly both are needed to allow access agreements to work well in practice. The Angling Trust is very concerned that governing bodies of canoeing are frequently misstating the law on navigation on rivers in England and Wales and thereby encouraging conflict. This makes the commissioning of voluntary access agreements less likely or even impossible. However, this will not stop the Angling Trust continuing to promote access agreements as the way of increasing access for canoeists in line with Government and Environment Agency policy. Basically, I believe that these statements are encouraging the more militant members of the angling community to actively enforce landowners riparian rights. I do not believe that is something that anglers should be doing. If a landowner wishes to close down public access to a river then it's up to him to try and enforce it, not angling clubs. As evidence of the type of behaviour which these policies are encouraging I enclose for your attention a letter which I wrote to the Norfolk Anglers Conservation Association last June (to which I never received a reply), together with an email exchange between Canoe Englands local access officer on the Wensum and the chairman of the Norfolk Anglers Conservation Association. You will note that the anglers are citing Angling Trust and Fish Legal national policy to defend their position. I think it's fairly self evident from this correspondence which side of the dispute is being unreasonable. I also see no evidence, on a local level at least, of any reluctance on the part of canoeists to enter into access negotiations. The Trusts policy infers that riparian landowner rights are clearly established and enforceable in law. I do not believe this is a sensible or desirable line to take for two reason. Firstly, a great deal of research has been done which suggests that common law navigation rights may well exist on virtually all of our waterways, and if you ever ended up in court then there is a significant risk that you would lose (refer attached research by Douglas Caffyn). Secondly it infers that the Angling Trust would consider becoming involved in taking legal action against 'illegal' canoeing, when I do not really believe that there is any political will to do so. Take my dispute on the Wensum for instance. I have been told by the Norfolk Anglers Conservation Association that any canoeing on "their" stretches of river is illegal. As a result, I've gone out my way to do precisely that, and made a video of myself doing it which has since been posted on Youtube, see : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3NH8NFgRNU I've actually stated in the video that I intend to do it again, and that I will incite others to do likewise. I've done this precisely to try and provoke a court injunction from the angling club / respective landowners so that we can argue it out in front of magistrate. But when their bluff is called in this way, the angling club / landowners lack the political will and legal certainty to enforce their own policies. As a result the present situation persists, whereby gangs of thugs patrol the riverbanks threatening and intimidating people. At a national level, the British Canoe Union is not misstating the law on navigation, they are stating their interpretation of the law which is based on extensive and detailed research by their legal experts. Clearly, their interpretation of the law differs from yours, however I don't see it as particularly helpful for one side to publicly accuse the other of deliberately misleading people and encouraging conflict. When angling clubs decide to become involved in closing down public access to a river, then ultimately it ends up dragging the reputation of all anglers through the mud. That is not something that I wish to be associated with. I'm not a regular canoeist. I go paddling once a year, usually during the closed fishing season. However I object in the strongest possible terms to a group of obsessively fanatical anglers telling me that I can't, and so I'm afraid that until such time as a satisfactory resolution to this dispute can be found, then I shall not be joining the ranks of the Angling Trust. I appreciate that you have a very difficult job to do, and more often than not find yourself stuck between a rock and a hard place. However I trust you also understand my reasons for not wishing to sign up whilst this dispute remains unresolved. Best regards, Andrew ----- Original Message ----- From: [Mark Lloyd] To: [Andrew Youngs] Cc: [Chairman of the Regional Ecology, Fisheries and Recreation Advisory Committee] Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 9:34 AM Subject: RE: River Wensum Dear Andrew, Please find attached our policy on inland navigation. I am always happy to respond to our members and we are setting up regional forums for members to make their wide-ranging views known. Please join up and then we will be able to consider your views along with our other members’. Many thanks, Mark From: [Andrew Youngs] To: [Chairman of the Regional Ecology, Fisheries and Recreation Advisory Committee] Cc: [Mark Lloyd] Sent: 15 July 2010 01:01 Subject: Re: River Wensum Thanks [Mr Chairman], If I've got any further issues with the Angling Trust then I'll take them up directly with Mark Lloyd (at least I've now got his email address). I've got a surgery booked with my local MP on Saturday to discuss this. In the meantime I'm quite hopeful that the EA have been given a sufficient jolt to enable the situation on the Wensum to be solved locally. I've just had a long telephone conversation with the EA's new eastern area manager and he has agreed to facilitate a series of meetings between Canoe England's local access officer and the respective landowners on the contentious stretches of the Wensum. It's a positive step forward. I can't help feeling it shouldn't have to be like this though ... Andrew ----- Original Message ----- From: [Chairman of the Regional Ecology, Fisheries and Recreation Advisory Committee] To: [Andrew Youngs] Cc: [Mark Lloyd] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 9:39 PM Subject: Re: River Wensum Dear Andrew, Thank you for copying me this correspondence and I will forward it to Mark Lloyd. I know he is aware of the issue. You probably already know that the Trust's policy statement on canoe access is available on its websitre. Regards [Chairman of the Regional Ecology, Fisheries and Recreation Advisory Committee] ----- Original Message ----- From: [Andrew Youngs] To: [Chairman of the Regional Ecology, Fisheries and Recreation Advisory Committee] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 8:16 PM Subject: Fw: River Wensum Dear [Mr Chairman], Please see below recent correspondence exchange between myself and the regional director of the Environment Agency. I am forwarding this information to you principally to enable you to properly discharge your duties as a director of the Angling Trust, rather than in your capacity as chairman of REFRAC. However for your information, I would just bring to your attention that [canoeing interests which sit on your advisory committee] have been informed of recent developments. The Norfolk Anglers Conservation Association have consistently maintained that they will be represented and supported by the Angling Trust and Fish Legal in any attempts to resolve this dispute. Personally I find this a highly improbable claim. Nevertheless, the assertion has been made, and I would just like to make sure that the Angling Trust is being kept appraised of what is said and done in their name. Perhaps therefore you would kind enough to make sure that the true nature of this dispute is brought to Mark Lloyd's attention. For your information, this issue is the only reason that I have not yet joined the Angling Trust myself. As you know, I am a lifelong angler, and I hope you agree that it would be preferable from the Angling Trust's point of view to have me on the inside spitting out, rather than the outside spitting in. In any event, these are important issues, and hope you will use your influence to ensure that the Angling Trust's national policy towards canoe access is moderated in such a way as to deny the intolerant and bigoted attitudes of a small minority of anglers the oxygen of national support. Best regards, Andrew ----- Original Message ----- From: [Andrew Youngs] To: [Regional Director of the Environment Agency] Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 8:06 PM Subject: River Wensum Dear [Regional Director of the Environment Agency], Thank you for your letter of 9 July 2010. I acknowledge that right from outset of our correspondence exchange the Environment Agency have taken my complaint seriously and endeavoured to respond to the issues raised in a timely manner, albeit within the terms of their existing remit. As you know, I consider the remit as it stands at the moment to be totally unsatisfactory. I feel that the issues have now been given sufficient transparency to allow the points on which we fundamentally disagree to be identified and that this is now a matter for the Ombudsman to address. As such, I am not expecting you to respond to this message (unless of course you particularly want to). I merely wish to take this opportunity to clearly lay out the main points of contention. You will no doubt be aware that this whole argument was recently inflamed when the Norfolk Anglers Conservation Association participated in a live debate on Radio Norfolk, during which they confirmed that they considered any canoeing through "their" stretches of river as being illegal. They referred to canoeists as "environmental vandals" and described the allegation that they had engaged in threatening and intimidating behaviour as "complete rubbish". In short, I believe that they committed libel. It appears that these are not just the views of a few hotheads, but that such sentiments go right to the top of their organisation. All the way in fact to their Chairman. They are the stated views and policies of an unelected, unaccountable vested interest organisation with whom both you and Natural England are involved in ongoing partnering arrangements. Everybody agrees that the present situation is unacceptable, but nobody seems willing or able to do anything about it. The basic truth is that both Natural England and the Environment Agency have contrived to create this situation, and you are now trying to disassociate yourselves from the whole affair. I don't blame you for that. I wouldn't want to get involved in it either if I was in your position. However I fear that it's not quite as simple as that. As you are aware, the key recommendation of the Wensum Restoration Strategy is the removal of artificial obstructions and mill structures to allow the river to naturally re-profile and provide an unobstructed corridor through which native wildlife species, many of which are endangered, can migrate. Of a total fall in the river of 34m, some 60% of this fall occurs immediately downstream from mill structures. It is no coincidence that these are precisely the locations which have traditionally been the holding points for the Wensum's barbel population: ie, downstream from Lyng Mill, Taverham Mill, Costessey weir pool and Hellesdon Mill. There is therefore a fundamental conflict between barbel fishing on the Wensum and sound environmental management. I have previously asked [the regional manager for the Environment Agency] to explain why these obstructions have not yet been removed and received the rather unconvincing explanation that feasibility studies have yet to be carried out. I do not believe this explanation. I suggest that the real reason is because to do so would irreversibly damage the riffles which have already been created at Costessey and Lyng, and most likely destroy the extremely limited barbel habitat which currently exists on the Wensum. I believe the truth is that the Environment Agency and Natural England have never had any intention of removing these mill structures, preferring instead to pander to the narrow self interests of a few obsessive people in the Barbel Society and the Norfolk Anglers Conservation Association. I believe the Environment Agency has always had a private agenda which comprises disregarding the requirement for the removal of mill structures in defiance of the Wensum Restoration Strategy, and then putting in place a protocol which would allow the ongoing introduction of a non native species of fish into a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a Special Area of Conservation whenever the population density falls below a certain level. By all means prove me wrong. I wish you would. I would welcome confirmation by return that the mill structures at Costessey and Hellesdon (which you own) will be removed immediately, and that you will initiate negotiations with the respective landowners for the removal of Taverham Mill and Lyng Mill. In fact such an undertaking would go a considerable way to reassuring me that the Wensum Restoration Strategy is being properly and fairly implemented. But somehow, I can't see that happening. So, for as long as the Norfolk Anglers Conservation Association are resisting canoe access on the river, then I shall be lobbying for these mill structures to be removed and for the draft barbel stocking protocol which you are trying to have sanctioned disallowed. To this end, I shall be seeking a surgery with my MP, with a view to requesting the involvement of Parliamentary Ombudsman. Similar requests have already gone out to the MP's for Norwich North and Norwich South, whose constituencies boarder the river at Costessey, and sympathetic members of my canoeing party who live in these constituencies are currently lobbying those MP's to become involved. Finally, I would just like to comment on your offer to broker a meeting between the British Canoe Union and the Norfolk Anglers Conservation Association. I accept that this offer was made in good faith, and that the British Canoe Union declined this invitation. I also appreciate that this was something which I initially asked for. However in so doing I think we have all misunderstood the respective roles of these organisations. On reflection, I can fully understand why the British Canoe Union at a national level would not wish to attend such a meeting. The Norfolk Anglers Conservation Association are not even the landowners, let alone a nationally representative angling body. I can see that a meeting between national representatives from the Angling Trust and the British Canoe Union might be useful, however any such discussions would inevitably encompass a whole range of issues. I do not think that arranging such a meeting purely to discuss this one dispute would be a particularly wise use of anybodies time. However at a local level, Canoe England's local access officer has repeatedly stated that he would welcome greater involvement and consultation in these issues. I suggest that any such discussions should therefore be between [bCU local representatives] and the respective landowners, possibly chaired and facilitated by you. If such a meeting, or series of meetings, could be brokered then it's quite feasible that [the BCU local access officer] might ask me to provide some input in my capacity as a private individual with an interest in these issues. I would be happy to do that. Since I'm not a member of the Canoe England I really don't have a view either way. However the reality is that if it were possible to broker an agreement between Canoe England's local access officer and the respective landowners then the Norfolk Anglers Conservation Association would have to come into line and the dispute would be largely resolved. I hope you consider this to be a sensible suggestion, and thank you for your ongoing efforts in securing a satisfactory resolution to this dispute. Best regards, Andrew Youngs

Well spotted Worms, getting a response from the man himself is not straightforward. For any doubters out there I attach a full text of the exchange (I've edited out any personal contact details in the interests of keeping the mods happy) Angling_Trust_Exchange.doc

How much the fleet is worth? I'm afraid I couldn't count that high Elton. There's a couple of decent sportfishing charter vessels, a few small commercials, and squillions of pounds worth of privately owned luxury pleasure crusers. If you ask me, this is really about throwing taxpayers money at enhancing the value of the weekend retreats of a bunch of wealthy bankers from the City of London.

Erm, no, I think shall pass on participating in that organisation full stop. If they're not interested in my opinions, then I'm not interested in swelling their coffers. Shame really, what a wasted opportunity.

I sent the following email to Mark Lloyd on 15 July 2010: I do not agree with the Angling Trust's decision to allow only Trust members to post on it's internet forum. I think it stifles open debate and undermines the whole point of an internet forum. At the end of day, if someone posts inflammatory remarks on an internet forum then you are perfectly at liberty to ban them; whether they're members of the Angling Trust should not enter into it. The following reply was received 2 hours later : I am very busy and have to prioritise communication with members. I am therefore not able to continue this discussion with you Ho hum