Angler cautioned for illegal fishing methods

[Peter Waller]

Had time to think. Yes, I think that the EA did the right thing. Had the issue gone to court and had Mr Collins got off then nothing, zilch. Had he been found guilty he would probably have been issued with a caution, because of his age etc., and that could have set a precident in law. Because a caution was issued outside the court it can't be used as a precident. But then I'm not a legal expert, far from it, but until someone tells me otherwise that is my understanding of the matter. So yes, I'm content that justice, all things considered, has been done in a fair manner. Just hope I'm right!

[Nugg]

Well I’m not at all sure it was such a result, lets just look at the pros and cons of what has been said.

 

He is 80 years old in September, but he had been doing it for three and a half years, when he was caught. 75.5 years old sounds a lot younger does it not?

 

He say’s “ Having made his protest public he would not be doing it any more”. He was caught red handed, if he had not been, would he still be doing it now?

 

Having been caught in the act, he admitted the offence, and co-operated. Could he reasonably do any thing else?

 

We all know that set lines, are a no-no, but why no mention of the gaff, an instrument outlawed many years ago, and one that can really do angling a great deal of harm within certain circles.

 

He admitted that he knew what he was doing was illegal, so there does not appear to be a weakness of mind as a defence.

 

Oh yes, He said sorry.

 

Some of you may think that I am being a bit hard with the facts. Well all I can think of is all those silly people who, may or may not have known that it was illegal to fish without a licence, I wonder how many of those got off with a caution, young or old. Of course there is a financial aspect when it comes to licence fees.

 

He got off with a caution, for the killing of at least 50 fish, in what I would think most of you find an abhorrent manner.

 

 

No I’m not happy but it’s the best it’s going to be.

To my mind Collins got the result.

 

[ 02. August 2004, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: Nugg ]

[Peter Waller]

Maybe I'm not right!

[kleinboet]

Steve - when a precident is set, it does not matter about criteria etc. Ask any lawyer!

[grumpybum]

Well I can meet 4 out of the 5 criteria. The only one I fail on is age. So what would be my chances for getting away with an angling offence?

 

It still sets a precedent though doesn't it? Will any angler over say 65/70 ever have to buy a rod licence again?

 

A caution at his age means nothing. Having a criminal record at his age isnt exactly a punishment is it?

[chevin]

Hmmm, if you look at the good Peter Collins has done for anglers and angling in the past, one might wonder about the full extent of his protest.

Certainly I would be reluctant to condemn him on the basis of whatI have seen. There is a possibility that although the EA has the law on it's side, it may not be right on the issue in hand.

[corydoras]

Peter Waller:

Peter Waller:

What constitutes a 'set line' in England? In Scotland a fishing rod in a rod rest is technically a 'set line' and you could be prosecuted for using this combination in fresh water.

I have often wondered about this one with regard to bolt rigs etc. But that is a whole new ball game.

Clue me up then please Peter, what is a 'set line' in England? I'm not being funny, I genuinely don't have a clue.

[Dick Dastardly]

As some have said allready the outcome is about what we could have hoped for and after some thought I suppose about right.

I still find it a bit strange that it is ok to fine a guy using a third (and often licenced) rod whilst piking on the Fens more than a drunk driver or yob who asaults some one out side a night club!

Chevin,out of respect for the many,many good posts you have made here over the years I have refrained from a one word answer to your post! You can not surely be sugesting that no matter how deep Collins views were on the Zander situation that he was right in doing what he did?.Or more importantly his depth of belief and previous good deeds exempt him from prosecution?

I like many find the logic behind some angling "bye laws" to be flawed but if I were to be caught breaking them I would expect no quarter. :confused:

[chevin]

BUDGIE:

You can not surely be sugesting that no matter how deep Collins views were on the Zander situation that he was right in doing what he did?.Or more importantly his depth of belief and previous good deeds exempt him from prosecution?

I like many find the logic behind some angling "bye laws" to be flawed but if I were to be caught breaking them I would expect no quarter. :confused:

If you read my note again, you will see that I suggested none of those things. I simply said that I would be reluctant to condemn him on what had been presented. I have no problem with him being prosecuted any more than he did. However, I felt that some of those unaware of his history were taking a moralistic view of his actions. Peter had something to say and he was limited in his choice of ways in which to say it. Sometimes a radical approach is the only way to ensure that your point is heard. I am not saying that he was right in what he did, I just say that I would like to hear from him as to why he did it. He only broke the law in the way he tried to bring his belief to the attention of others, he was not prosecuted for that belief! Could it be that he is right in what he believes and that by listening to him a problem could be avoided in the future?

[StuMac]

I think EA rules prohibit Zander being returned to certain rivers (Severn, Avon??). Matt Hayes was filmed fishing one of them, and returning Zander. Should he be prosecuted??