Jump to content

AT helping the EA to knock the last few nails in?


lutra

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jeeze Brian I despair for the future of angling full stop in the UK when rags like this and their readership start to dictate angling policies.I was going to sign up and offer my views but after reading the "headlines" and seeing the replies to the issue on the forum decided it just wasn't worth the effort.

 

Without,in fact I no longer care if I sound conceited or elitist, just look at the type of person the AT is using to add weight to their argument ie youngsters/newcomers to the sport people with very little knowledge or experience and cant even string together a half legible response.

 

I hope others follow your link and see what I mean.The loonies are definitely running this asylum.

And thats my "non indicative opinion"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They say they are delighted with the quality of the comments?????

That must be on the AT version, certainly not the EA one. (When I saw the thread title I wondered which AT it meant, but I'm struggling to see much difference between the two).

 

As I said on the 'Keith Arthur' thread in the conservation forum, ( http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/forums/Keith-A...s-t2029781.html ) Contradition, hypocracy, and downright stupidity are rife. Some don't even know the difference between coarse and game fish.

 

Judge for yourself.

https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/p...878&do=view

 

Most are just repeating 'sound bites' from the weeklies, (about 'Eastern Europeans'), saying something vague about "stock levels/balance", or offering no explanation for their decisions at all.

 

(On the 'Eastern Europen' issue, I scan several forms, and on each there are reports of bbqs up and down the country, where they indulge in drink fuelled parties, while eating dozens of coarse fish and wild fowl. Strangely I have never seen any photographic evidence on any of the forums. It seems that most have a camera ready incase of an exceptional capture, but don't have one when they encounter a scene such as this. :huh:)

 

During my enforced lay off from angling this year, I have been delving more into the 'politics' surrounding it. I can tell you what I'm seeing is scary. Anglers are being 'brainwashed', (though some barely need more than a quick rinse), and manipulated into making some very serious and dangerous decisions, that don't bode well for the future.

 

John.

Edited by gozzer

Angling is more than just catching fish, if it wasn't it would just be called 'catching'......... John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A sad day indeed,

 

If the majority of the people that contributed to the consultation think that new laws will stop illegal anglers taking fish to eat then well,............ :wallbash:

 

If the law comes in I'm afraid I may have to join them! I enjoy my grayling fishing as I do my trout and salmon fishing and coarse fishing. Occasionally I take a fish for the table and I would be prepared to risk getting caught (fat chance!). It would be interesting to see how the law would stand in a courtroom and how they arrive at a random ban on taking a salmonid from a recognised game river by an angler fishing with legal tackle during the correct season. Why have they lumped grayling in with coarse fish as a fish not to be taken? It could be quite intesting as Scotland sees Grayling as (legally) a game fish!

 

Why not include all fish in the no take ruling? The fish thieves will just target game fish if the law comes in, fewer risks for stealing trout and better tasting than a muddy old carp as well :headhurt:

 

What about my minnow fishing for chub? I suppose that will be illegal as well. I come in as one of the 16.7% of anglers who agreed to livebaiting. I also came in as one of the 2.7% who like the odd jack for tea.

 

I wonder what the ratio of anglers that replied was regarding carp in muddy pool angler versus river angler etc? I don't suppose there is any way of knowing.

 

This goes entirely against my normal standing regarding angling legislation. I fish legally with the appropriate licence and I respect the close seasons and I have my own minimum sizes (which far excede those of the EA) for fish that I take.

 

A sad day. As has been mentioned many times before on this subject, only a short step to having a mighty fight for retaining angling at all now :(

Eating wild caught fish is good for my health, reduces food miles and keeps me fit trying to catch them........it's my choice to do it, not yours to stop me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, I'm not surprised. The AT have taken a deliberate, short-sighted view on this issue, and it will come back to haunt them. How many people will buy their paper each week when no-one is allowed to go fishing?

 

Surely someone there can see past selling the next 'bumper' issue? Or is this just stage one in a careful editorial strategy to take angling to the brink - and then single-handedly save it? Imagine the sales then...

 

OK, I know I'm being over the top, but this whole situation would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. I can't put it any better than Budgie when he said 'I despair for the future of angling full stop in the UK when rags like this and their readership start to dictate angling policies.'

 

I don't want fishing to be politicised. The more 'we' drag ourselves into the political world, the quicker we'll reaslise that we are way out of our depth in the real world.

And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A sad day indeed,

 

If the majority of the people that contributed to the consultation think that new laws will stop illegal anglers taking fish to eat then well,............ :wallbash:

 

If the law comes in I'm afraid I may have to join them! I enjoy my grayling fishing as I do my trout and salmon fishing and coarse fishing. Occasionally I take a fish for the table and I would be prepared to risk getting caught (fat chance!). It would be interesting to see how the law would stand in a courtroom and how they arrive at a random ban on taking a salmonid from a recognised game river by an angler fishing with legal tackle during the correct season. Why have they lumped grayling in with coarse fish as a fish not to be taken? It could be quite intesting as Scotland sees Grayling as (legally) a game fish!

 

Why not include all fish in the no take ruling? The fish thieves will just target game fish if the law comes in, fewer risks for stealing trout and better tasting than a muddy old carp as well :headhurt:

 

What about my minnow fishing for chub? I suppose that will be illegal as well. I come in as one of the 16.7% of anglers who agreed to livebaiting. I also came in as one of the 2.7% who like the odd jack for tea.

 

I wonder what the ratio of anglers that replied was regarding carp in muddy pool angler versus river angler etc? I don't suppose there is any way of knowing.

 

This goes entirely against my normal standing regarding angling legislation. I fish legally with the appropriate licence and I respect the close seasons and I have my own minimum sizes (which far excede those of the EA) for fish that I take.

 

A sad day. As has been mentioned many times before on this subject, only a short step to having a mighty fight for retaining angling at all now :(

 

 

Worms, mate, this is what happens when one or two people get a bee in their bonnet about something and start trying to impose their own ideals on everyone else. You've taken part in some of the discussions on the conservation and politics forum about sea angling related matters, well, now it's starting to happen to coarse fishing, too. Maybe you can see now why I have opposed so much of what is happening within sea angling?

DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

 

Don't drink and drive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worms, mate, this is what happens when one or two people get a bee in their bonnet about something and start trying to impose their own ideals on everyone else. You've taken part in some of the discussions on the conservation and politics forum about sea angling related matters, well, now it's starting to happen to coarse fishing, too. Maybe you can see now why I have opposed so much of what is happening within sea angling?

I don't disagree with the sentiment of your post but there is in my opinion a huge difference regarding the freshwater fishing scene and the current sea angling scene.

 

Freshwater anglers pay for a licence to fish the waters. This licence pays for bailiffs to police the waters and to protect the interests of the legitimate anglers. The EA imposes catch limits and size limits on different species (although this is highly variable depending on area). This allows us to take fish for the table.

 

We also pay landowners, either directly or indirectly (through club membership) to fish the land on which the river/lake is. The current fish theft laws are based on taking fish without the landowner's permission. As such, a EA licensed club member is legally entitled to take fish if the landowner does not object and the fish are in season and of the correct size.

 

The new proposals appear to be by-passing the current legitimate paid for permissions of anglers. If the law is changed will we get a reduction in our licence fee? I think not. will one of the local landowners benefit from the odd grayling that he receives from me for allowing me to fish his private stretch of water? no. Will any more fish thieves be caught because of the new legislation? probably not, most likely the odd legitimate angler will be hauled over the coals for taking the odd fish for the table. In the meantime fish theft will continue.

 

Returning to the conservation and politics forum about sea angling related matters. This is why I am so keen on seeing as many RSA's (Recreational Sea Anglers) getting involved to have their say on any new proposals regarding future legislation. The bigger the body the louder the voice. In freshwater fishing, the largest (and loudest) body seems to be that of the stocked pond where fishing is (relatively) easy and a massive tackle industry and large industrial concerns supports their interests (at the expense of the wider environment). The 'red-top' angling press supports this style of fishing and blames everything from wildlife to every migrant worker in the country for the decline of fish stocks with poorly researched copy blatant lies.

 

Naive about some things I may be but getting the first and hardest (legitimate) punch in is the best way of getting people to take notice. As you have said about RSA's, most are individuals, not large club members, the same may well be true of freshwater anglers. I guess that a considerable proportion of individuals have heard nothing of this new proposed legislation and the same may be true of RSA's. That's why I was trying to convince people like yourself to get noticed in the beginning by going public and raising issues with other anglers and the steering groups etc that are being setup.

 

Oh well, I'm just off down to the Lugg..............must fill the freezer with grayling whilst I can :P

Eating wild caught fish is good for my health, reduces food miles and keeps me fit trying to catch them........it's my choice to do it, not yours to stop me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bizarre thing about this proposed change in the law is that the only people it affects are those who currently take fish legally with the permission of the landowner. Everything else is already illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with the sentiment of your post but there is in my opinion a huge difference regarding the freshwater fishing scene and the current sea angling scene.

 

Freshwater anglers pay for a licence to fish the waters. This licence pays for bailiffs to police the waters and to protect the interests of the legitimate anglers. The EA imposes catch limits and size limits on different species (although this is highly variable depending on area). This allows us to take fish for the table.

 

We also pay landowners, either directly or indirectly (through club membership) to fish the land on which the river/lake is. The current fish theft laws are based on taking fish without the landowner's permission. As such, a EA licensed club member is legally entitled to take fish if the landowner does not object and the fish are in season and of the correct size.

 

The new proposals appear to be by-passing the current legitimate paid for permissions of anglers. If the law is changed will we get a reduction in our licence fee? I think not. will one of the local landowners benefit from the odd grayling that he receives from me for allowing me to fish his private stretch of water? no. Will any more fish thieves be caught because of the new legislation? probably not, most likely the odd legitimate angler will be hauled over the coals for taking the odd fish for the table. In the meantime fish theft will continue.

 

Returning to the conservation and politics forum about sea angling related matters. This is why I am so keen on seeing as many RSA's (Recreational Sea Anglers) getting involved to have their say on any new proposals regarding future legislation. The bigger the body the louder the voice. In freshwater fishing, the largest (and loudest) body seems to be that of the stocked pond where fishing is (relatively) easy and a massive tackle industry and large industrial concerns supports their interests (at the expense of the wider environment). The 'red-top' angling press supports this style of fishing and blames everything from wildlife to every migrant worker in the country for the decline of fish stocks with poorly researched copy blatant lies.

 

Naive about some things I may be but getting the first and hardest (legitimate) punch in is the best way of getting people to take notice. As you have said about RSA's, most are individuals, not large club members, the same may well be true of freshwater anglers. I guess that a considerable proportion of individuals have heard nothing of this new proposed legislation and the same may be true of RSA's. That's why I was trying to convince people like yourself to get noticed in the beginning by going public and raising issues with other anglers and the steering groups etc that are being setup.

 

Oh well, I'm just off down to the Lugg..............must fill the freezer with grayling whilst I can :P

 

Without wishing to start another huge debate coveing the finer points, suffice to say that the probelms are essentially the same for both coarse and sea angling. Proposals to penalise anglers and drive another nail into the coffin of angling in general, that will make no difference whatsoever in the grand scheme of things.

 

Sea 'anglers' got their punch in first and made themselves noticed. Unfortunately, it was by making stupid proposals like the ones we are seeing now coming from certain coarse 'anglers'.

DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

 

Don't drink and drive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bizarre thing about this proposed change in the law is that the only people it affects are those who currently take fish legally with the permission of the landowner. Everything else is already illegal.

 

Exactly, Steve. It reminds me of those ridiculous situations when an unlicensed and uninsured driver gets a driving ban...

 

The main point, which many on here have put forward but I have yet to see anywhere else, is - who is going to enforce the new legislation? You can make killing a 5lb carp punishable by death if you like, but unless that law is properly enforced, what's the point? If it is possible to enforce this new law, why not just enforce the laws we already have - i.e. the Theft Act?

 

The whole thing makes no sense whatsoever.

 

It is a very good illustration of how easily manipluated people are by a media with an agenda. Mob rule and short-sighted thinking soon takes over. It's a point I've made before, but if you apply that scenario to the real world of political gains and winning votes, you can see all too easily how a ban on angling can come about. Swap the AT for the government and the outraged man on the bank for the outraged man on the street, and what have you got...?

And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.