Jump to content

Angling Trust Forum


Elton

Recommended Posts

And Jet Ski's and power boats and water skiers as well Andy?

No, they should most definitely be licenced and limited to certain areas well downstream. Swimmers and unpowered craft like rowing boats and canoes however fall into a completely different catagory.

never try and teach a pig to sing .... it wastes your time and it annoys the pig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 566
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Freshwater angling is already pretty much regulated compared with sea, so all this is, is the NE weadling it's way into the bureaucracy gravy chain to offer up yet another level of management for all to enjoy. They may have to suggest a second licence for all to pay for it, with the taxpayer subsidising the balance as no doubt it will be expensive.

 

Simular happenings are going on with sea angling at present, with various quangos offering up protection to the rocks and seaweed, all will have to pay for that and at the end of the day, when after the governing trust recommends you all must provide these quangos details of where you fish and dig worms, the bonus of that is they, quangos, will tell you where you can no longer fish. These quangos do not have any other mandate apart from offering up bans. It will be expensive to run and so no doubt, another licence will be called for. Won't make any difference to your angling experiance though, apart from restrictions as the lundy banned area will have to have at least another 25 years to run to see if it does produce more fish. So if there is a possibility of improvements, it won't be within a lot of our fishing lifetimes i'm afraid.

 

Someone asked me the other day if i fished the Scilliy isles, i have Alderny, no was the reply, wonder why, same as Christchurch really compared with Weymouth.

 

In the meantime, the new management level will have a good long period of stability recieving wages, exes, pension packages, company vehicles, stun guns and flack jackets in case of descent. :P

Edited by barry luxton

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly what NEW proposals the NE are making do you think are sensible then Big Jon? The banning of livebaiting full stop? The taking over of fishery management policies? Forcing waters to open up to canoeists and swimmers?

 

And what ones do you think are not?

 

I think all the proposals highlighted in the above e-mail/blog post are sensible and would actually be beneficial to the health of our rivers. Spinning it to make it sound alarming is a bit sad.

I must have missed the part where they said they would ban live baiting full stop. The issue is transfering stock between waters.

As for swimmers and canoeists, I fish regularly on waters already open to canoeists and it doesn't really cause any problems because there really aren't many people who go canoeing and the vast majoirty of those that do cause very little disturbance. Hardly anyone is going to be interested in swimming in most waters anyway. Do you honestly think they will ?

You can't seriously expect the waterways of the UK to be for our exclusive use, it's selfish and unrealistic. I think unfortunatley like too many people today, you to want to portray yourself as a victim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Er, yes. As anglers we do not own the waterways and there are many other factors that need to be considered. Why should the management of our waterways be orchestrated purely for the benefit of anglers?

 

There's me thinking I said 'Fisheries Policy', or maybe it was you who missed that.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There needs to be a recognition in policy that quiet, peaceful pursuits like angling, birdwatching and walking need to be segregated from brash, noisy pursuits like swimming, jet skiing, canoeing, mountain biking. "We only want to share" is pretty disingenuous if your activity ruins mine and mine does not impact on yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think all the proposals highlighted in the above e-mail/blog post are sensible and would actually be beneficial to the health of our rivers. Spinning it to make it sound alarming is a bit sad.

I must have missed the part where they said they would ban live baiting full stop. The issue is transferring stock between waters.

As for swimmers and canoeists, I fish regularly on waters already open to canoeists and it doesn't really cause any problems because there really aren't many people who go canoeing and the vast majoirty of those that do cause very little disturbance. Hardly anyone is going to be interested in swimming in most waters anyway. Do you honestly think they will ?

You can't seriously expect the waterways of the UK to be for our exclusive use, it's selfish and unrealistic. I think unfortunately like too many people today, you to want to portray yourself as a victim.

 

 

As seems all to common these days NE seems to be trying to invent the wheel! The "issue" (regardless of whether the science/fact behind it being an issue is correct or not) of trandfering of livebaits has all ready been dealt with at both national (Section 30 consent) and grass roots ie club level all ready by the existing legislation.Seems many bodies and individuals are totally ignorant of any current regfulations regarding angling full stop. THIS IS MY CONCERN ie people who dont know and havnt even the curtousey of finding out the facts before wading in!

 

I have no worries about sharing the water with other users as long as we can all show consideration for each others needs.In fact this is where an independent boby controlling and allocating water use would be usefull.Trouble is as Steve Young shows we are all selfish sods and only want to "share" with whom we choose and on our terms! Sharing is great in theorey but normally falls down in practice.

 

On the subject of sharing a lot of people/groups who use our water ways dont want to share one important thing.......and that's the cost! Cyclists are a prime example as are walkers.

 

Im no victim Big Jon and hope I dont come across as portraying myself or angling in general as such.I would just like to see a workable system but sadly the past has clearly shown this is not to be so having also learned from the past Im on guard about ANY organisation from ANY area or sport (and this includes angling ones) who want to take control of our waters full stop.

 

Now (as I mentioned earlier) a body made up from a wide range of water users would be good with experienced and qualified representatives from angling.fisheries management,nature conservancy,boaters,ramblers et al would be a different matter.

 

No Im definately not a "victim" but certainly have no intention of allowing myself to become one mate!

Edited by BUDGIE

And thats my "non indicative opinion"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

"Unfortunately some established angling practices are detrimental to the environment. For example, anglers live baiting? with ruffe are believed to have introduced this fish to Bassenthwaite SAC. Here the species established itself and became a significant predator on the eggs of vendace, contributing to this species? local extinction."

 

Interesting that they use the same nonsensical argument about Ruffe live bait that was used to engineer a livebait ban in Scotland.

Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes fact :angry:

 

Notice how they use weasel words like "it is believed" or "are believed to have" (by whom?) because there is not, and never has been any form of proof, or to be honest even a reasonable suspicion.

Edited by Sportsman

Let's agree to respect each others views, no matter how wrong yours may be.

 

 

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity

 

 

 

http://www.safetypublishing.co.uk/
http://www.safetypublishing.ie/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave people often ask why I used to argue the "LommonRuffe" thing so strongly....Youve hit it on the head! The more it appears the more its taken as a scientific fact! Despite it having been disregarded by most (with any qualified opinion) as both scientificly unsound as well as simply not falling in line with common angling practices!

And thats my "non indicative opinion"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

 

Notice how they use weasel words like "it is believed" or "are believed to have" (by whom?) because there is not, and never has been any form of proof, or to be honest even a reasonable suspicion.

 

Those are english tabloid newspaper phrases, commonly used to make an article appear factual.

 

"By whom?"... it can be the man next to you in the bar, for all its worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But normally some no body who wants to be a somebody using it for their own purposes. Just pees me off that so many anglers blindly accept this rubbish and further it by quoting it when I try and offer a reasoned argument.

And thats my "non indicative opinion"!

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.