Jump to content

Angling Trust Forum


Recommended Posts

As I mentioned earlier, most of the NE paper, when taken in context, is sensible stuff. I'd much rather have NE discuss and regulate angling matters than the amateur shower at AT and the EA. Fortunately, the majority of their material is gained from real scientific research and, you can actually speak to them.

 

If their view on conserving natural water involves removing carp and othe rnon-natives then I'm all for it. NE are also much more sympathetic and aggressive when it comes to river management....natural over-rules man-made.

 

When the artificial angling groups try and instigate plans to 'ameliorate' angling to suit some anglers everything goes tits up. When plans are proposed to improve the country's waterbodies (and fish stocks) NE are neither for or against specific angling styles but, will hammer unnatural or damaging practices..........no problems for me on that account.

 

Also I'm with Gozzer, if the numpties at AT and EA continue to promote stupid angling practice then bugger 'em, I'll fish the way I always have!

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 post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 566
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As I mentioned earlier, most of the NE paper, when taken in context, is sensible stuff. I'd much rather have NE discuss and regulate angling matters than the amateur shower at AT and the EA. Fortunately, the majority of their material is gained from real scientific research and, you can actually speak to them.

 

If their view on conserving natural water involves removing carp and othe rnon-natives then I'm all for it. NE are also much more sympathetic and aggressive when it comes to river management....natural over-rules man-made.

 

When the artificial angling groups try and instigate plans to 'ameliorate' angling to suit some anglers everything goes tits up. When plans are proposed to improve the country's waterbodies (and fish stocks) NE are neither for or against specific angling styles but, will hammer unnatural or damaging practices..........no problems for me on that account.

 

Also I'm with Gozzer, if the numpties at AT and EA continue to promote stupid angling practice then bugger 'em, I'll fish the way I always have!

 

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."

 

Not how I read it

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 post
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."

 

Not how I read it

It depends on whether you read selected quotes picked out by specialist angling organisations or you read the whole of the paper......it also depends on your experiences with the EA, AT and NE. I have experience of dealing with all three and I'd rather trust NE to deal with angling than the EA or AT. Look at the feck ups they've made already this year. NE were against the stupid recent legislation recently introduced but were ignored by our "national angling representative body" and the governmental organisation that we pay to keep our waters in good order.

 

Whether ruffe and roach and dace got into those lakes by themselves, ballast water or any other method is largely irrelevant. They are there and damaging locally native fish.

 

On top of that "Unfortunately some established angling practices are detrimental to the environment" yep, introducing non-native fish to badly sited ponds on flood plains is, without a doubt one of the worst angling practices ever yet it is supported and promoted by the EA and AT!

 

My money is with the people that know what they're talking about, not the people with (our) money that talk about what they think they know!

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 post
Share on other sites
I'd rather trust NE to deal with angling than the EA or AT. Look at the feck ups they've made already this year. NE were against the stupid recent legislation recently introduced but were ignored by our "national angling representative body" and the governmental organisation that we pay to keep our waters in good order.

 

Agreed. I think part of the problem is that the EA have been excessivly influenced by militant angling lobby groups, to the point where the whole institution is percieved (with some justification) as unfairly biased. They're in danger of the serious accusation of misappropriation of public funds.

 

I'd much sooner put my support behind Natural England. Problem is that in the past they've all too often been too weak in the face of EA pressure. Natural England need to be stronger.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
There's me thinking I said 'Fisheries Policy', or maybe it was you who missed that.........

I didn't miss it Rob, but I do think there is a serious risk of your 'fisheries policy' being misinterpreted as a 'rivers policy'. At the end of the day I don't really care as long as it's implemented fairly.

Edited by andy_youngs

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
It depends on whether you read selected quotes picked out by specialist angling organisations or you read the whole of the paper......it also depends on your experiences with the EA, AT and NE. I have experience of dealing with all three and I'd rather trust NE to deal with angling than the EA or AT. Look at the feck ups they've made already this year. NE were against the stupid recent legislation recently introduced but were ignored by our "national angling representative body" and the governmental organisation that we pay to keep our waters in good order.

 

Whether ruffe and roach and dace got into those lakes by themselves, ballast water or any other method is largely irrelevant. They are there and damaging locally native fish.

 

On top of that "Unfortunately some established angling practices are detrimental to the environment" yep, introducing non-native fish to badly sited ponds on flood plains is, without a doubt one of the worst angling practices ever yet it is supported and promoted by the EA and AT!

 

My money is with the people that know what they're talking about, not the people with (our) money that talk about what they think they know!

 

I wouldn't argue with almost everything you say and to be honest it doesn't affect me anyway as in a couple of months I won't be here.

What does however grip my **** is the fact that they don't mention your excellent example of badly sited ponds on flood plains but drag up, once again, the old chestnut of pikers livebaits, particularly Ruffe, being responsible for the spread of species when there is not an atom of proof that this is the case. As a pike angler in Scotland in a predominantly game fishing area I have to cope with anglers who want to throw every pike caught up the bank. When this nonsense is repeated as fact then they want to throw pike anglers up the bank as well.

Interestingly work done on the Ruffe invasion of the North American Great Lakes (I'm not taking the blame for that one :rolleyes:) shows that firstly Ruffe are not very attractive to predators. They actually tried stocking areas with preds as a control method but found that Northern Pike (same as ours) don't really like eating them so they would be crap livebait and as far as I know are never used as such. Another interesting point is that the Ruffe get blamed for eating other species eggs. Again, work in the great lakes shows that fish eggs form a tiny part of the Ruffes diet.

Now I don't pretend to know much about marine biology but I do know a little about Pike Fishing and I do get irate when so called experts repeat obvious nonsense as fact because they are too lazy (or have other agendas) to find out what is actually happening

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 post
Share on other sites

Having a look at the trusts forum again this evening, one lonely posting again, i don't think absolutly any of the trusts members have put up a post to discuss sea fishing, THIS YEAR, so would that really be classed as an abject fail, for an org that recons it's all encompassing and dictates that it governs all including sea angling. I am aware that the total single membership is hovering just over 13,000 same as last year,disaster really, :D that's including fresh water as well as the secular specillist guys who would join any org as long as it has mass layers of rules that they can follow dilligntly. Can't really see it surviving in it's present state. Perhaps with it sticking to it's governance attitude it wants to become another quango, to try and get the taxpayers to fund it, as as sure as eggs are eggs, they ain't making any inroads into the rsa punters, and long may they don't. B)

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 post
Share on other sites
Having a look at the trusts forum again this evening, one lonely posting again, i don't think absolutly any of the trusts members have put up a post to discuss sea fishing, THIS YEAR

I think one very positive thing they could do is to open their forum up to open discussion and debate. I wrote to Mark Lloyd a few weeks ago suggesting this very thing ... to his credit he did at least reply, however the response was of a stone-walling nature. Apparently he's too busy prioritising communications from their valued members to give consideration to non members like me. Ho hum, if they won't listen then I guess they've only got themselves to blame ....

Edited by andy_youngs

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am aware that the total single membership is hovering just over 13,000 same as last year,disaster really, :D that's including fresh water as well as the secular specillist guys who would join any org as long as it has mass layers of rules that they can follow dilligntly.

 

I wonder if that figure includes those anglers, like myself, whose membership actually expired months ago, yet are still on the AT's books and being told their membership will lapse if the AT doesn't hear from them within a few weeks?

Edited by Steve Coppolo

DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

 

Don't drink and drive.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had my latest 'Update' e-mail from the AT. As usual there's nothing at all about sea angling on it among the 10 headlines. But there was this!

 

"Angling Trust to Call for Ban of Eel Fishing

Now that all anglers must release any freshwater eels they catch, the Angling Trust intends to respond to the current consultation on eel bye laws by demanding that all commercial eel fishing should cease. Given how little we know about the lifecycle of the eel, its dramatic decline in numbers and its importance to the aquatic ecosystem, we can’t see how commercial exploitation can be justified any longer."

Link to post
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...