andy_youngs

Please handle those fish carefully. Show down, it appears, is 3pm, Sat 31 March, at a remote cottage. Lookin forward to this one Fred

So what do you think should constitute the British barbel record? I feel strongly that there should be a discinction between stocked barbel which are intoduced into an artificial environment, and wild fish which are caught from a river to which the species is indigenous. Of course, such a distinction would automatically discount the current record contenders from the Upper Great Ouse and the Wensum.. On the Medway, I acknowledge that you have a bit more of a claim. 16lb still seems a bit on the heavy side for that environment though. Not wishing to take anything away from your achievement, but my guess is that high protein suppliments and artificial stockings played a part in your success. I would take your 16lber from the Medway over a 20lber from the Wensum. But I'd also take a 14lber from the Trent over your 16lber from the Medway.

Never understood that logic. UK laws are what we choose to make them.

Hehe, I guess that'll do. At least he's got the intellegence to get in a boat before the floods hit.

On this side of the pond there is a sea-fairing nation. An island of distrinct tribal divisions, it is nonetheless, an island. Over here, a man does not have to be an angler to join an angling forum ... if he is an honourable sailor, then that is enough.

Good policy. Me too. It's called "trust in God, but always navigate away from the rocks" I'm surprised nobodies yet asked to see a copy of the magazine article though; it is a truly remarkable piece of writing. Here is the offending passage in full, which occurred during filming for Springwatch 2010 (closed fishing season): "By mid afternoon the barbels passion had subsided a little, just before they all fled in terrified panic. No, not an otter but canoes, fifteen of them filling the pool. Luckily, ***** was there to plead with them not pass over the riffles, while I shouted at them with incandescent rage, not because my filming was screwed but because they were trespassing on the river during the most sensitive weekend of the year. As I vehemently pointed out to them, passing over shallow riffles was like walking over a bed of blue-tits eggs, and although they lied about having permission from the Landowners, they also expressed complete ignorance that it was the fish spawning season. But surely they know that ducks, moorehens, kingfishers and all the other wildlife they had disturbed on their illegal trespass downriver had dependent young at that time of year. I'm sure NACA have tried, but canoeists certainly need educating, and maybe a voluntary scheme in which they are allowed access to the river at less critical times of the year might be a way forward. But at present the country seems to be descending into anarchy, where people do what the hell they like regardless of the laws of the land." I think the real issue to be addressed here, is whether rank and file anglers are prepared to allow this man to represent them as part of the 'voice of angling'

Steve is clearly hesitating before answering your question Phone, and I can't say I blame him. The title of this thread is 'discrimination', and the subject is my banning from a public forum for accusing the Angling Trust of pursuing 'fascist' policies. These words, 'fascism' and 'discrimination' are very emotive terms. I have not used them lightly. I have used these words because Hugh Miles, Angling Trust mogul, published a magazine article in which he describes 'shouting in incandescent rage' at a group of canoeists who were attempting to paddle down the Wensum during the closed fishing season in May 2010. It wasn't me, or anyone I know that he shouted at. But when he did that, and then published his words in a magazine article, then it became relevant. He also presented an untrue picture of the ecology of the Wensum to the public on the Springwatch series that year. This has been to the embarrassment of the Executive Producer of Springwatch, who had previously given me written assurances that there had been no collaboration between Springwatch and local barbel fishing interests on the Wensum in the making of the programme. The other recent appointment within the Angling Trust that I object to is that of Martin Salter. The reason I object to his elevation into the corridors of power is that he had an opportunity to solve these problems once before, but he chose not to. As far as he's concerned 'war war' is better than 'jaw jaw'. I'm not sure how many people are aware of this, but Martin Salter challenged me to a public debate on the Fishing Magic Forum. I accepted. Then I was banned from the forum.

Some are respected. Others less so. There's some good men in that lot though.

Well I'm not surprised John. If you googled beaver, latvia, USA then I'm sure you'd get some 'interesting' results. I however, was referring to a search on ebay for 'beaver pelt', and I got loads of hits, mainly from the USA, Canada, Latvia and Scandanavia. My post was intended as a reference to the fur trade, not the skin trade. And the reason for bringing it up was that we in the UK are getting our knickers in a twist about whether or not to cull beavers (and for that matter otters, foxes, badgers etc), when it actually makes perfect commercial sense to harvest all of our naturally given resources on a sustainable basis.

Just out of interest, I've been trawling around for the cheapest beaver pelt I can find. It costs £35 + VAT, and it comes from Latvia. You can also buy them from the USA, but you go up into another price bracket (£100 +). I'm sure there must be a business opportunity in here somewhere ....

Yeah, I can see that a sailing yacht or powerboat might get transported overland and transfer the parasite in its bilge. But they also do zander and pike fishing on Grafham Water which should not be discounted.

How about a vote on the most likely cause of the transfer, the options being : 1. Transmission through anglers nets (legal) 2. Transmission through anglers nets (illegal) 3. Transmission through canoe / kayak access. 4. Transmission through human contact (ie, welly boots on the ground) 5. Transmission through other environmental factors (natural spread)

That makes me very happy. It's not only informative, it's also constructive. It's the new world passing on little pearls of wisdom to the old ...

I have no idea of the answers to any of your questions Leon, and quite frankly, I really don't care. Are you seriously suggesting that such petty considerations constitute valid reasons for the "governing body of angling" to perpetuate a policy of denying public canoe access to over 95% of our inland waterways?

I remember him. He posted a film on vimeo a couple of years ago about mahseer fishing in Pancheswar, at the junction of the Saryu and the Mahakali Rivers in Northern India. From memory, I believe it was an amataur short film promoting one particular tour operater in India. Quality was OK, but it gave the impression that mahseer fishing is much easier than it is in reality.

That does seem to be the crux of the dispute Steve. I would not be happy for canoe access rights to be settled in the same way as fishing rights are negotiated, because they are inherently different activities. You ask how to reconcile the private ownership of fishing rights with the public desire for greater canoe access. But the two issues are mutually exlusive. If a landowner leases the fishing rights on a stretch of river to a sydicate, then the syndicate has the right to stop others from fishing there. But that does not give either the landowner or the syndicate the right to close down navigation by unmotorised craft through that stretch. If there is anyone out there that can show me a valid lease between a fishing club and a landowner, which allows for exclusive use of the river for angling in return for money, and specifically prevents navigation as a precondition, then please do so that I can progress my challenge. I doubt very much if such a lease exists, and if it did then my hunch is that the terms would be illegal in statute law. I guess we shall see ....

Yes I am, that is precisely the problem. You never know when you are entering forbidden territory, so you are effectively denied the opportunity of taking kids paddling down the river. To my mind it's a tragedy and a disgrace. Several of the landowners on my local river have erected 'no navigation' signs on the riverbank. But I would never acquiesce to that. I would rather defy it. The river's been navigated for centuries, and I'd rather elevate the argument to a court of law.

I think you're being a bit melodromatic Steve. I don't wish to nationalise all club, private and syndicate waters. But I do suggest that it might be sensible for all club, private and syndicate waters to declare their interest in restricting canoe access to defined stretches of river at certain times of the year. Just tell us where you are disputing canoe access. That way, I will know not to take kids paddling through that stretch.

I guess they're both owners of a domain. I think what it boils down to is how would you behave in that situation, and how would you wish to be remembered after you check out? Would you choose to jealously guard your domain, and exclude others from it, or would you prefer to share it with others?

I think citizens should have the right to go fishing in their local river. And I also think that they should have the right to paddle down it. It should not be up to just one intolerant landowner to prevent a citizen from paddling down their local river. Giving people awareness of the natural environment by embarking on a canoeing expedition can be every bit as rewarding as an angling trip. The important thing, to my mind, is that we should try our very best not to trip over each other's shoe laces.

Always interested in useful discussion Renrag. Enjoy your stealth paddling. Believe in God, but always steer away from the rocks. And never paddle the Wensum during the closed fishing season, otherwise you might become the victim of assault.

It's not quite a happy ending for me mate. The dispute is still unresolved.

Barry / Bob. Thanks for these posts, entertaining stuff. Not that I'm really any the wiser on what your differences are, but thanks for keeping the thread current. I've had a hard look at the Equality Act, and I to have agree with Snakey1 that I don't appear to have a case for discrimination under that particular piece of legislation. So if I want to keep the dispute live, then I guess I'll have to get my thinking cap on. From a preliminary assessment, it seems that if you are banned from a forum, and feel aggreived at your treatment, then the only form of redress is to go on other forums to explain what has happened. I've certainly vented my spleen on the 'Song of the Paddle' forum for canoeists, and perhaps unsurprisingly, been well received. To date, it's only the FM forum that's kicked back. And if I'm being honest, it was a collision waiting to happen. If it hadn't been FM, then it would of been 'Barbel Fishing World' or some other such forum. In truth, the only reason that I was never banned from the Angling Trust forum is that they wouldn't let me on without payment. I did often toy with the idea of paying the AT fee, just so I could post on their forum, but in the end I decided I would rather burn a £10 note. Thanks AN, for allowing my voice to be heard.

Yeah that is a shame. Didn't mean to stir the pot.

I think I understand these people fine Steve. I choose to fight them, rather than to acquiesce to them because I think they're wrong. If they deny me a platform on FM, then ok, but they're the one's who have got to live with the consequences of that decision. AN clearly doesn't believe that my voice should be silenced though. Credit to them.