andy_youngs

From Martin Salter : "when it comes to standing up for the environment, applying double standards and using inflammatory language that only causes unnecessary divisions." Pot, kettle, black

I'd be gratefule for any feedback over this posting :

Erm, yeah Erm, nah, not interested. They don't represent me.

Seems to me that there are three possible permutations of the first sentence : 1. There have been "damning" indictments of the EU's controversial common fisheries policy (CFP), and / or ; 2. The policy has "failed", and / or ; 3. Fisheries affairs should, in future, be "repatriated" to member states. Which one(s) are you referring to? I hope it doesn't come down to goring oxes. What's wrong with dividing up the North Sea into 'fair' zones of harvesting?

I don't want Mr Miles and Mr Salter in charge of this. I'd rather have the cormorants.

Is it really beyond the wit of man to simply publish a map indicating where the problem areas are?

I don't care. This is about a rat-**** fight over a non indigenous species being stuffed into my local river. And the AT have drawn the Scouting Movement into this argument on the AT forum. So what have they got to say about it?

I doubt it. You seem to live in some sort of bubble which presumes that the AT policy on canoe access is universally accepted by everyone. It isn't. Try googling the subject, there's a very vociforous dispute going on out there on the ground, and silencing me won't make it go away. And we haven't heard from the Scouting Movement yet. I try not to miss a trick, but my intention has never been to ruin threads. The intention is to enrich them with diverse debate

I'd be interested to know how the scouting movement feel about the canoe access issue?

Might be worth a try, but I suspect that trying to stop the spread of beaver is like trying to stop the tide coming in.

I've spent some of the best years of my life mullet fishing, both in Lowestoft and the Channel Islands. And I'm not bald.

I've got no problem with the term 'cull', as long it's not applied to human beings. When it comes to species like badgers, foxes, seals, otters, etc, I think 'cull' ultimately becomes the only option. Sadly, we wait until the population gets out of control, does untold damage to the environment and peoples livlehoods, and then we end up having to have a mass cull and incinerate the carcasses or throw them in ditch somewhere. To my mind, it would make far more sense to harvest these species in a sustainable manner, so that the populations don't get out of hand in the first place. Seal meat is worth money, so are seal, fox, otter and badger pelts. Specialists could be licensed to harvest these resources in a sustainable and humane way, rather than allowing the problem to get out of hand so that widescale culling becomes necessary. It's our useless bloody politicians who are too preoccupied with mollifying the bunny huggers that don't get it.

You mean the bit where I alleged your claims were spurious? I edited the spurious word out in retrospect because I didn't want to be perceived as being inflammitory. But since you bring it up, it is true. I'm not the one that's failing to substantiate my position, you are.

Nonsense. The evidence suggests that at some point in the last 428,000 years the Wensum once flowed into the Rhine. But the evidence also suggests that 18,000 years ago there was a permenant land bridge between England and mainland Europe, and that sea levels were 120 metres lower than they are today. 12,000 years ago the land bridge disappeared and sea levels rose dramatically. See :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland You're cherrypicking the science to try and justify your argument. I've grown up on the Wensum and seen first hand how the barbel fishermen have manipulated the truth and the law to suit their own ends, and to hell with the environmental consequences. There's only 2 things they care about : stuffing the river with as many artificial barbel introductions as possible, and keeping canoeists off the river. In order for barbel to survive in the broads catchment then they would have to survive in the main river, the Yare, and run up tributaries such as the Wensum to spawn. But they can't. The Yare is too slow flowing and muddy for them to survive, and in any event, migration up the Wensum is blocked with manmade obstructions. So what we end up with is a few isolated populations of artificially stocked barbel which are unable to reproduce, and a bunch of militant barbel fishermen who are hell bent on closing down public access to the river. How can there have been a Govt sanctioned introduction 1876, when prior to the 1960's barbel translocations were commonplace without Government restrictions? And why do you make no reference to 1500 barbel which a previous poster has confirmed went into the river in 2000? You provide NO substantiation for any of these claims, which conflict with links that I have previously posted by the owner of the Royalty Fishery. Again, you're cherry picking and basing your arguments on junk science. And if you are seriously suggesting that simply because a river has been artificially stocked with barbel for 150 years then the fish should be considered native, then you are deluding yourself. That is simply an argument for extending the 150 year rule to 200 years. Barbel are not native to the Hampshire Avon or any of the Westerly rivers in England, and their introduction into these rivers has coincided with a progressive decline in salmon stocks. The EA get 20 days to answer a Freedom of Information request, and I will get to the truth of this matter. The point is that indigenous roach stocks are supposed to be in the river, barbel aren't. And a 10lb barbel is going to eat more salmon spawn than ten 1lb roach. And I very much doubt if your two 5lb chub are indigenous to the river either. Why? I perceive that to be the case based on my first hand experience. I don't blame you. If I was in your position I wouldn't want to drag them into this either. I on the other hand would like to include them in this debate. Because it's relevant their job, and they're the ones that were lied to by the Environment Agency in the meeting in October last year Thanks for wishing me luck, but I doubt if the Bristol Avon would be any more fruitful than the Hampshire Avon. Barbel are not native to that river either (see Wheeler and Jordan again). But they're a lot better suited to the Bristol Avon than they are the Hampshire one.

Well I'm an angler, and I expect the AT to represent me in a responsible manner. At the moment they are quite patently not doing that. I think they're being divisive and confrontational in a misguided attempt to mollify a militant minority. There's nothing wrong with seeking respect, and I totally agree that respect will not be forthcoming unless it has been earned. To date the AT have done nothing to earn my respect. The reason this thread is entitled 'discrimination' is because a respected member of this forum wrote to me suggesting that I might have a legal case for discrimination after being banned from the FM forum. Following discussion, I've already concluded (and publicly acknowledged) that I do not think this assessment is correct. So we've moved on from that, and we're now discussing the issues outlined in post #90. To date, the only detailed response I've had to this post is from cg74. I haven't responded to his post (yet) because I think it's fairly obvious that his comments are unsubstantiated. But I'd be glad to read any relevant comments which you would like to make. Just please make sure that any comments which you make are true, and that they can be substantiated. This is important because as you've probably gathered, this is a bit of a touchy subject.

Not quite true Phone. I am seeking respect from responsible anglers and canoeists. It's the irresponsible ones that I don't care about.

A bit unnecessary Brian. It's untrue, and it doesn't help your cause. I suggest you concentrate more on the issues, and less on my timekeeping.

Not exactly, I went on FM intending to tell the truth as I see it, anticipating that it might result in a quarrel, and then being prepared to see the argument through to its natural conclusion. If that means a banning order, then ok, I'll take it. And the truth which I intended to tell is this : 1. Barbel are not native to either the Wensum or the Hampshire Avon. The only reason they are present in these rivers is due to a long history of artificial stockings. 2. Both rivers are Special Areas of Conservation, and barbel actively predate on all the endangered species for which these rivers recieved this conservation designation. 3. On both the Wensum and the Hampshire Avon, anglers (especially barbel fishermen) are widely percieved as trying to deny canoeists access to these rivers. 4. When anglers do this, and when the Angling Trust then backs them up, then there is a strong likliehood that it will be counter-productive and reflect badly on all anglers. That is the central truth that I was trying to point out. Problem being that positions have become so entrenched over this matter, that when you try and place the issues in the public domain, then you run the risk of getting vilified. Which is pretty much what has happened. Like you cg74, I'm getting a bit bored with all this. I'll post the results of my Freedom of Information request in due course. I have no idea what the reply will be, or what the public response to this reply will be. I guess we shall see.

That's not the majority on here. That's just you trying to ram your views down everyone elses throats.

The outcome I expected on the Fishing Magic Forum was to get banned. I went into it with attitute because I believe that there is a profound injustice being perpetrated, and I'm therefore going to do everything in my power to prevent that from happenning. Do I really care that I've p$ssed off a load of barbel fishermen on the Hampshire Avon? Not really. That's what I intented all along, and the reality is that I don't give a rats **** about the FM forum or whether or not they choose to admit me. I just don't care. As far as I'm concerned, the best thing they could of done is to ban me. If they'd had any sense at all, they would have done it from the outset. Make no mistake, I've got real issues with people who are trying to close our rivers down to navigation access. And as a result, I'm using best endeavours to place a permanent moritorium on artificial introductions of barbel into the Wensum and the Hampshire Avon because I don't think it's helpful to the common good. You can pretend it's not happenning if you want. You can try and ridicule and mariginalise your political opponents. But that ain't gonna stop the process. I've put a Freedom of Information Request in to reveal the barbel stocking history of the Hampshire Avon. I'll print the reply on here as long I haven't been banned. If I have, then it will just go up on to other internet medium.

hmm. I completely agree that no one could fathom exactly what my point was, so I was therefore rude and argumentative. And that's why I got a temporary ban. The permenant ban came for bringing that forum into disrepute on this forum. Do I have any regrets? None whatsoever.

I am I am You're wrong Stop lying to us. If you didn't care, you wouldn't post.

Well done Brian. This is a very effective way of not posting. Me, not an angler? And I vigorously deny the Victor Meldrew 'grumpy old sod' accusation; now please bugger off

Correction duly acknowledged. The offending words are : "fascist", "hypocrite", "bully". I agree

Erm, I think I'd throw that one back at you Steve ... sure, I started this thread, but why post if you don't want to discuss it?