Free Angling Coaching On The River Wensum In Norwich

[andy_youngs]

What did I do to merit that comment?

Sorry Elton, what I meant by that is that you own this site, so when these debates take place on the forum then everyone natuarally looks to you as the final arbiter. Once all the mods have done what they have to do, then the buck stops with you. Fair credit to you, we've had an interesting debate on this thread so far, and as far as I'm aware nobody has removed or edited the content in any way. If allowed time, then I will reply to all of the recent posts individually in a reasoned way.

Edited November 4, 2009 by andy_youngs

[andy_youngs]

Im sorry Andy but i still stand by my post.

 

“You seem to have jumped to the conclusion that barbel have been introduced into an alien environment. Why? There is no evidence in what you have put forward to back that up, only that their population may have been small and vulnerable.”

 

To make it worse, having read what you put forward from Messrs Jordan and Wheeler again. I’ve just realised its not even referring to the Wemsum, its just a generalisation of “small lowland rivers” and is just a “load of ****s” really.

 

Maybe it would be a good idea if you could show us some of this evidence from the “Magna Carta” about lack of barbel in the Wensum 150 years ago. Wasn't it written a few hundred years to early for that?

 

If your going to put forward some evidence from a modern day source like the “Environment Agency”, can we have an idea of how they sourced it and also see things in full not just snips that can be taken out of context. That way we can study the facts and maybe come to some “basic common sense” about what the real facts are.

 

I haven't jumped to this conclusion lutra. The fact of the matter is that barbel were introduced into the Wensum in the late 1950's for the first time in living memory. I wish that was not the case. I wish that I had spent my childhood close to a river that supports a natural population of barbel. I think they're a great sport fish, and barbel fishing is a very absorbing and commendable passtime.

 

The reason I have refered to Messrs Wheeler and Jordan report is becasue NACA refer to it in an article : http://norfolkanglers.co.uk/publications/d...the-wensum.html in which I felt scientific findings were being ever so slightly misrepresented. Therefore I decided to post on the issue in public.

 

There is obviously no way of veryfying the EA position that barbel are not native to the Wensum. If anyone had been able to prove such a claim then they would have done so by now, and we would not be having this debate. But to suggest that just because nobody has been able to verify it, therefore it might just have existed at some point in the past is as absurd as claiming that UFO's might just exist because nobody has been able to disprove their existence.

[andy_youngs]

Andy Youngs, sorry and all that, but I am right.

No problem Peter, but I think you'll find you're not right, you're just popular. I reckon I'm right, but then I also seem to be pretty unpopular at the moment. C'est la vie my friend.

[andy_youngs]

Sorry Andy, but your the one who comes across as arrogant, firstly because you are quite patently wrong. The Magna Carta relates to tidal parts of rivers only, because if your assertion was correct then there would be no principle by which angling clubs could own waters or lease them.

Bllimy. I think you'll find the Magna Carta makes reference to navigation rights in all rivers and streams in the realm, whether they're tidal or non tidal. Angling clubs are perfectly entitled to lease the fishing rights, but not the navigation rights. That remains with the Crown.

 

Wind your neck in and take your canoe somewhere where it wouldnt be both an annoyance to other people, or where there are navigation rights, such as the Bure, Thurne, Yare etc etc.

I don't choose to do that Mark. I'm sorry if you feel unable to tolerate my presence on the river or my approach to sustainable river management.

[andy_youngs]

Fair enough, but going through stretches of a small, intimate river that you know is inhabited with grumpy barbel anglers does sound like an invitation for stonze to be thrown

 

I made a decision that I wanted to canoe my local river from its source to its mouth. It's a small intimate river which is inhabited by grumpy barbel anglers. Therefore I decided to go in the closed fishing season, so as not to upset them.

 

As an angler I am quite surprised that you can't see the other side of this. It does sound as though the anglers you came across could have handled the situation better though.

 

As an angler I can see through it perfectly, and it pains me greatly. I have spent some of the best years of my life chasing barbus tor. I understand the addiction perfectly.

 

Actually, if that encounter you had with those anglers had gone differently - if they were polite, friendly and courteous and explained their point to you and asked that you avoid certain bits of river in your canoe - would you be as angry and determined and you are now? Or would you have seen their point and paddled elsewhere?

 

Look, if a stretch of river is simply closed down to public access then it's gonna cause hard feelings. The anglers who tried to argue that one couldn't win, there is no polite, friendly or courteous way of kicking someone off a river without a sound environmental reason. From my point of view I was on a major logistical expedition. So an unpleasant incident ensued.

 

What it comes down to is that if you erect a riverbank sign along the lines of "please do not canoe through this piece of land outside the hours of 10am to 4pm during the period 16 June - 30 September, then it will probably be observed voluntarily and conflict will be avoided.

 

The problem arises when signs are erected which say "private property, keep out".

 

I might be wrong, but revenge seems to be the main motivation...

I certainly feel aggrieved. What I would really like is for NACA to alter their stance on this issue. I think they have arrived at their present entrenched position bacause of paranoia that the river is suddenly going to get flooded with canoeists, but I suspect this fear is unfounded. I have written a great many letters to them, the EA and Natural England over this in recent months, and I feel like I have been bashing my head against a brick wall. Hence the evident frustration.

Edited November 4, 2009 by andy_youngs

[andy_youngs]

Perhaps I should try the wensum for some fun filled moments. regrads

 

John

Look forward to it ...

Edited November 4, 2009 by andy_youngs

[Elton]

Sorry Elton, what I meant by that is that you own this site, so when these debates take place on the forum then everyone natuarally looks to you as the final arbiter. Once all the mods have done what they have to do, then the buck stops with you. Fair credit to you, we've had an interesting debate on this thread so far, and as far as I'm aware nobody has removed or edited the content in any way. If allowed time, then I will reply to all of the recent posts individually in a reasoned way.

 

Fair enough. I'd kind of taken it differently, at first glance.

 

You're right that nobody has edited or removed content so far, as far as I'm aware. The reason being, nobody has reported this thread and it's possible that my chance reading of it yesterday was the first by any of the moderating team.

[Peter Waller]

No problem Peter, but I think you'll find you're not right, you're just popular. I reckon I'm right, but then I also seem to be pretty unpopular at the moment. C'est la vie my friend.

 

Just for the record, Andy, I spent considerable time presenting evidence to a House Of Lords Select Committee on the very subject of access to tidal and non tidal waters. I have scoured the evidence papers and conclusions of various barristers and their learned friends from both Houses. As far as English law is concerned I am right, which, as my wife can confirm, is exceedingly rare.

[Anderoo]

The problem arises when signs are erected which say "private property, keep out".

 

Most of England is covered by Keep Out signs! Whether we agree with the motivation behind them or not, it's not up to us which to respect and which to ignore, is it?

 

As an angler I have access to a very limited amount of free fishing. There are lots of clubs or day ticket waters I can join to get access to water via private property, and there are some syndicates that I will never have a hope of joining, however much I want to.

 

How much do the NACA members pay to fish that bit of the Wensum? Would you be willing to match it and accept limitations on techniques, movements and times/dates of access, like them?

 

Whether barbel are 'native' to the Wensum is entirely irrelevant.

[John S]

You're right that nobody has edited or removed content so far, as far as I'm aware. The reason being, nobody has reported this thread and it's possible that my chance reading of it yesterday was the first by any of the moderating team.

 

In yer dreams boss-man, I've been reading this thread almost from the start

 

Just haven't seen anything that warranted editing/deleting (yet )