andy_youngs

How much to non members?

Well predicted, and well played (lucky *******'s). See ya next year ....

Fur. First we pillaged our own resources, the we pillaged the rest of the world. We made a lot of money in the process though...

Oh come on Phone, white men have been invasive in America for at least 400 years. In Mexico, the Spanish have been there for much longer. I humbly suggest that going back a mere 150 years is misleading.

"Mark Lloyd, chief executive of the Angling Trust, said: “We believe that the Scottish Government has failed in its duty to protect the whole of the UK by allowing this situation to develop. These illegal releases should never have happened, and when they did, a rapid decision should have been taken to eradicate the animals from the wild. Quite clearly there will be nothing to stop the beavers moving south and into England with the potential to create damage to our river systems and spread diseases and potentially lethal parasites.” Personally, I'd quite like to see beavers moving south. I just find it unbelievable that we have deliberatly released a 'Mark Lloyd' into such an artificial environment, and now we're all scratching our heads wondering what went wrong ....

I've just realised that the search for Don's Pond has been visible simultaniously on both the 'coarse fishing' section, and the 'politics and conservation' section. Hakuna Matata. No problem.

I don't understand. What don't you have, the 150 year rule? And what would the American Indians like to eradicate? Sorry, but you've confused me.

With respect Rob, that's what we're all searching for. My question is why has the search for Don's Pond moved from the coarse fishing section (the logical place for it) to the politics and conservation section (the illogical place for it). ? It's a mystery.

I've no doubt that there may be a second 'Herlsington' in Kansas, USA. I've also no doubt that there's also another Herrrington, Heslington and Herlsington somewhere in the US. But none of that explains why this thread was moved from the 'coarse fishing' section to the 'politics and conservation' section ???

According to Wikipedia, the last native beaver sighting in England was in 1526. So I guess it's non native. But there again, it's more native than grey squirrels, mink, or himalayan balsam. The EA operate a 150 year rule for making these distinctions, ie, no records of a species within a specific habitat within the last 150 years = non native. But it's a subjective line, and an interesting discussion point. It's also pretty arbitrary in that the base point shifts with every passing year. As far as I can see, the 150 year rule has no legislative basis, it's just a definition that was invented by the EA to assist them in the discharge of their constitutional duties. Surely a more practical approach would be to say that if we introduce beavers into the environment and they thrive, then they're probably supposed to be there. And if we introduce barbel into the environment and they're populations consistently dwindle, then they're probably not supposed to be there.

I think he means East Herringtion on the Tyne : http://www.francisfrith.com/east-herrington/ Perhaps we could have some clarification?

Just curious, but why was this moved to the 'politics and conservation' area? And where is East Herlsington? I just googled it, and apparently, it doesn't exist. OK, got it, it's East Herlington, not Herlingston. Just goes to show how one missed letter can have unforeseen consequences.

Before i go forking out millions in a legal case against the Environment Agency and the UK Govt, would someone please tell me if there are any legitimate legal grounds for objecting to my challenge. It seems fairly clear cut to me, but I will happily take other views on board before I knock my bridges down.

I think the hint would be to combine the interpretation of no 2 with comprehension of no 1. Then your boy might respect your command of the english language. So would I.

These days, I don't go fishing often, and I don't go canoeing often either. Maybe once or twice a year. How often do I get abuse thrown at me? Very rarely. It happened once a few years ago. But I generally find those situations are avoidable and very few and far between. As long as you refrain from going either angling or canoeing, then you should be safe.

It's no secret that there's a very live dispute between sections of the angling community, and those who believe our citizens should have a right to navigate our inland waterways. It's also no secret that sections of the canoeing community view recent attempts by the Angling Trust to enforce landowner prohibition of navigation through certain stretches of river as a trip back in time to the Enclosure Acts. This is heavy stuff. It's not just about a few anglers and canoeists throwing stones at each other (although the reality is that that's whats actually happening on the ground). The Government maintains that it's up to anglers and canoeists to sort it out, and that it's not a matter for Government to get involved in. I think they're wrong on that, but what do I know? A question to an educated audience ... what do you think we should do?

But that's simple Jaff. These are your options : 1. An intensifier; often a qualifying adjective used metaphorically 2. "rare, genuine or true"; "proper"; "pukka"

Good instincts for an MU win Fred. Fulham did well though, Dembele looks really tasty (how much?). I don't think he's good enough to outwit Grant Holt, Steve Morrison, Simeon Jackson, Wes Hoolihan .. et al ... but I guess we shall see.

you're expecting MU to win then?

hehe, bring it on my friend ... so what do you think the score will be? I'm going for 7 - 0 Norwich. This is a grudge match Fred, cos the boys from Norfolk have got unfinished business ...

Thanks Lutra. My maggot is dangling in the water in a tantalising manner, and I am eagerly awaiting my first pull ...

I haven't been anywhere recently lutra, it's just that every time I try to quote someone the reply seems to get blocked out. I find it frustrating, I have been limited to 'fast replies' recently. Lutra my friend, if you have not bothered reading anything with my name on it, then I'm afraid that is your loss. Because we're only half way through the story ....

Newsflash ** rogue anglers may eat lost seal ** For heavens sake, just shoot the *** thing. And make sure you skin it and eat it afterwards. The pelts are worth money, and the meat is full of protein.

I think I'd quite like to launch a legal challenge over the definition of Non-native fish, National Fisheries Byelaws 2001, clause (3) c : Non-native fish means either fish species not ordinarily resident in England or Wales or species included in Part 1 of Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981" Problem being, that it conflicts with Article 4 (1) of the Habitats Directive : "... For animal species ranging over wide areas these sites shall correspond to the places within the natural range of such species which present the physical or biological factors essential to their life and reproduction. For aquatic species which range over wide areas, such sites will be proposed only where there is a clearly identifiable area representing the physical and biological factors essential to their life and reproduction"

I know the criteria for identifying a British record Steve, and i think the fish committee is losing it's way. I certainly wouldn't want to deny your fishery a record bream if it was properly deserved. The problem comes when you eradicate the preditors from a river, then artificially stock it with non-indigenous fish, then tip tonnes of high protein supplements into he river, then pull out a record fish. That's what has happenned with the UK barbel record. How is that fair to the poor buggers on the Trent and the Thames when they spend the best part of their lives practicing the noble art for real, but have no realistic chance of ever catching a record fish because of a few greedy cheats in East Anglia. To my mind it's akin to taking drugs in order to falsly win the 100 metres at the Olympics, and I think it all points towards the need for a two tier record system. I'm afraid I just find it profoundly wrong that the UK barbel record is 21lb 1oz. In fact, I think it's a travesty. The scientists need to go away and grow a barbel on in a stock pond to its maximum possible size so that someone can pull it out of the water on a hook and line at a weight of 23lb and set a new record. Meanwhile, the rest of us need to be abundantly clear that the current UK barbel record is an unnatural specimen from an artificially maintained population of barbel which is unsustainable in its natural state.