Justification

[Anderoo]

I'm having trouble seeing how taking fish for one reason (food), is more harmful than taking fish for another reason (bait), in regard to sustaining fish stocks.

 

I'm sure you know as well as I do, John.

 

We must all live by the Law of the land on the day we go fishing and if a ban results in better fish stocks and a clamp down on illegal taking of fish, so be it. More fish for lutra too... and as you know they have more right to fish than anglers.

 

That's the nub of it, Jeff - how can a ban (with exemptions anyway, as has already been pointed out) result in better fish stocks if no-one is there to enforce it? Many of the people taking fish to eat now are doing so illegally anyway (i.e. the Theft Act). Why would they suddenly stop just because the law has changed so that it is still illegal and there is still no-one out there catching offenders?

 

Everyone will carry on exactly as they are now. The only difference it will make is that non-anglers will now struggle to understand why we fish at all, and it will be much more difficult for us to justify our actions. Even if we didn't take fish to eat before, we had the right to. So:

 

- those who were taking fish illegally will continue to do so

- those of us (the vast majority) who don't take fish to eat will continue not to

- those people who like to take the odd small pike, etc. to eat (at no cost to the environment) are now criminalised

 

What will actually change? Nothing in the little insular bubble of angling, and potentially everything in the real world of media, politics and extremist agendas.

 

We (as a collective) have been gently led into this by a sales driven complicit media and a brand spanking new governing body which doesn't yet understand exactly what its done.

 

It's a crying shame but this whole fiasco is enough for me to not renew my Angling Trust subscription. I do not feel represented, in fact I feel slightly betrayed. I only really joined to continue to support the (old) ACA but as everything is now bundled all together they will lose out. I feel bad about this as it's yet another 'good thing' about fishing - helping to fund legal cases against polluters - that I can no longer say I contribute to.

[gozzer]

I'm sure you know as well as I do, John.

 

I can't be sure that I do Andrew.

 

Judging by how few anglers want to engage in any discussion with a hint of controversy about angling, I'm beginning to think that maybe my present 'ex angler' position is twisting my perception of events. Maybe my frustration is fueling my inbuilt cynicism, and causing me to vent my anger on those that are striving to help angling.

Or maybe the time I've spent using the Internet instead of a landing net, has made me actually see the things I only suspected before.

Maybe something you once said to me is right. If I remember correctly it went something like, "don't look over the fence, you might not like what you see".

Maybe I should just pull my hat right down, put my hood up, and wear my best blinkered polaroids, which appears to be 'a la mode' within much of the angling fraternity.

 

John.

[Steve Walker]

It's a crying shame but this whole fiasco is enough for me to not renew my Angling Trust subscription. I do not feel represented, in fact I feel slightly betrayed. I only really joined to continue to support the (old) ACA but as everything is now bundled all together they will lose out. I feel bad about this as it's yet another 'good thing' about fishing - helping to fund legal cases against polluters - that I can no longer say I contribute to.

 

 

You can join fish legal without joining the Angling Trust - in fact, if you don't live in England, that's all you can do.

 

In England, individuals wanting to support Fish Legal should join Angling Trust. In Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, individual supporter members can join Fish Legal direct for just £22 a year.

 

http://www.fishlegal.net/page.asp?section=...al%20Membership

 

Withdrawing your support can be a bit harder, though - I am a member of the Angling Trust by club affiliation, twice over, so I expect that if you ask them how many supporters they have, I would be within the number quoted - possibly twice!. Not much I can do about that.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Steve Walker

[yorkio]

You can join fish legal without joining the Angling Trust - in fact, if you don't live in England, that's all you can do.

If you do live in England though, I don't think you can just join Fish Legal. It's the Angling Trust or nothing, so far as I can tell. From the website:

 

"In England, individuals wanting to support Fish Legal should join Angling Trust. In Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, individual supporter members can join Fish Legal direct for just £22 a year."

[Anderoo]

If you do live in England though, I don't think you can just join Fish Legal. It's the Angling Trust or nothing, so far as I can tell. From the website:

 

"In England, individuals wanting to support Fish Legal should join Angling Trust. In Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, individual supporter members can join Fish Legal direct for just £22 a year."

 

Yes, that's my understanding too. If I can support Fish Legal without joining the AT then I definitely will

[Steve Walker]

That's their rule, but I don't see why you can't fill in the application form and use the address of a friend in Scotland or Wales - I'd rather give fish legal £22 than the Angling Trust £20!

Edited October 28, 2009 by Steve Walker

[gozzer]

Results of the consultation, and proposed action at this stage.

 

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/stati...Removals(2).pdf

 

 

John.

[andy_youngs]

For Heavans sake, I can't believe the authorities are wasting their time (and our money) with this. I take a few a pike every year for the pot, and will continue to do so irrespective of what the law says. Perch make quite good eating also, but table fish need to come from clean water. Trout & salmon are always worth keeping.

Is this argument being driven by people concerned about others taking carp for the table? I'm afraid I don't really get what the problem is. At the moment I have absolutely no intention of joining either the Angling Trust or Fish Legal, whether the charge is 1 pence, £20 or £22.

Edited October 28, 2009 by andy_youngs

[gozzer]

For Heavans sake, I can't believe the authorities are wasting their time (and our money) with this. I take a few a pike every year for the pot, and will continue to do so irrespective of what the law says. Perch make quite good eating also, but table fish need to come from clean water. Trout & salmon are always worth keeping.

Is this argument being driven by people concerned about others taking carp for the table or something? I'm afraid I don't really get what the problem is. At the moment I have absolutely no intention of joining either the Angling Trust or Fish Legal, whether the charge is 1 pence, £20 or £22.

 

Andy, this whole fiasco is a 'knee jerk' reaction to the alleged 'rape' of our waters by migrant workers from the middle east, and the theft of fish, mainly for selling and/or restocking other waters. Both these are covered by present legislation.

They even admit that they don't know how they are going to police the new legislation.

 

All this based on the 778 replies they got (presumably from anglers) on their "successful" on line consultation. (778 out of around 1.3 million licence holders).

I suppose the the sensationalist headlines in the angling rags helped, as well as the backing of the Angling Trust and it's advisers, and of course Martin Salter MP.

Time and money wasted on a consultation and formulation of the legislation, that wasn't/isn't needed. Time and money that could have been used on research into other more real dangers that threaten angling.

 

John.

[lutra]

Results of the consultation, and proposed action at this stage.

 

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/stati...Removals(2).pdf

 

 

John.

I cant see the logic in the 5.7 bit. If limits on the number and sizes allowed to be taken is good enough protection for the species that anglers say they most like to take, why do the species that we don't say we like to take need more protection (a total ban on taking)?

Edited October 29, 2009 by lutra