Will the new proposed legislation stop fish theft?

[Dick Dastardly]

Thanks Jeff.Its the bigger picture that concerns me as well and for me the actual removal of fish (which this was brought in to "control") hasn't any real bearing on the "bigger picture"! Now that sounds like Gobbldy Gook but the way I see it is its not going to change anything at all for the better ie there were so few fish being taken that it really didn't matter if they were or weren't at all! Commercials (in fact any privately owned water) were all ready protected under the theft laws and the existing size limits/bag limits that governed the rivers were never enforced anyway and maybe just maybe it was because the EA them selves didn't see any real need to make this a priority?

 

So I see nothing but a futile "appease the idiots who are ignorant of existing rules and believe all foriegners are eating all of our fish" stunt at best (think of the money "our money" that all this has coat and the time and effort that could have actually been used to actually improve our fishing system) BUT at worst another bit of angling whittled away.

 

Banging a fish on the head to eat or whatever has absolutely nothing to do with this they have just played the "emotive" card and many anglers have swallowed it...........................same as always.

 

Ive read your reply a couple of times but I still cant see what you actually think these changes will make to your sport.Please excuse me if I'm missing the point! Not a dig at you Jeff just that you are the only one who has had the guts to disagree!

[Dick Dastardly]

Guaranteed this will never happen.

 

 

Kind of an indication that things have gone sadly amiss in the sport when both the PRO (Jeff) and the ANTI (myself) have one major thing in common and thats we no longer have any faith in what the powers to be tell us will happen.... Honest I really dont like having to be so bloomin negative all the time!

[gozzer]

What really concerns me is the bigger picture - that anything that heavily predates on fish from our rivers, ponds, canals, lakes, should be closely monitored and reported on by independant experts without vested interests. Guaranteed this will never happen.

 

I know from your earlier posts that you are 'anti otter' Jeff, but the above statement certainly does cover the bigger picture. "Anything that predates heavily on on fish" covers many creatures, (depending on your definition of "heavily"). Do you propose the control of every predator? Do you consider every water as a 'fishery', only there to serve the needs of anglers?

There is a vast ecosystem where every creature plays its part in the "big picture" anglers are only a part of it, not the sole reason for its existence.

 

The school of thought that believes fish are just the 'playthings' of anglers, is the kind of thinking that will eventually cause the demise of angling.

 

John.

[Jeffwill]

I know from your earlier posts that you are 'anti otter' Jeff, but the above statement certainly does cover the bigger picture. "Anything that predates heavily on on fish" covers many creatures, (depending on your definition of "heavily"). Do you propose the control of every predator? Do you consider every water as a 'fishery', only there to serve the needs of anglers?

There is a vast ecosystem where every creature plays its part in the "big picture" anglers are only a part of it, not the sole reason for its existence.

 

The school of thought that believes fish are just the 'playthings' of anglers, is the kind of thinking that will eventually cause the demise of angling.

 

John.

 

John,

 

I would hope anglers opinions have been formed from personal experience (brings originality, new idea's and fishing improvements etc), and not just from from being peer pressured or simply agreeing with the "acceptable view" or "school of thought".

 

Sometimes on this forum there is a censorship of others opinions.

 

People keep on about the end of fishing.....as we speak who exactly in this country (with the support of the public or a massive membership), is trying to ban fishing?

 

I did indeed ask for the full picture, i.e. the effect ALL predator's have on fish stocks. Is it bad for an angler to want to know this kind of information? Am I not allowed to ask?

 

My opinion is that expressed in percentage's would be an eye opener to many but as I have said, its guaranteed never to happen. Blaming poles for dwindling stocks on rivers is too simplistic and I think they are taking the full blame for ALL predators..and now we have these new Laws as a result.

 

Anyway, tight lines for 2010.

Jeff

[gozzer]

Hi Jeff,

My post was based on personal experience, experience of anglers that want anything that predates on fish to be controlled.

Whether that be otters, heron, cormorants, mink, and even pike. Anything that feeds on fish is regarded as a menace, ruining the chances of anglers catching. My experience also says that eventually a balance will be reached where the energy expended by the predator trying to catch food, is greater than than it's intake. The predator then either moves to fresh pastures, or, falls back to a sustainable level. Then a pred to prey balance is reached. Whether that number of fish is enough to satisfy the expectations of the angler, is another thing. Usually the anglers call for restocking, which will of course attract more predators, and so on 'ad infinitum'.

 

If you want a breakdown of ALL predators, then it will be a massive undertaking. At various stages in their life, fish are eaten by anything from dragonfly larva, through every other fish in the water, onto 'normal' predatory fish such as pike, perch, and then to the birds and mammals.

 

It's not so much the effects of predation, that will sort itself out eventually, it's the expectations of anglers and what they consider an acceptable stock level, that's unnatural.

 

That's my view, it might not be the "acceptable" view, just mine.

 

I haven't noticed any "censorship of peoples opinions", just people questioning opinions that they don't understand/agree with.

 

Anyone can (and do) ask any question on here, just as anyone can disagree with, or ask for clarification of the question.

I asked you to clarify your position in regards to fisheries and predators, based on your previous posts on the subject, that's all.

Am I not allowed to do that?

 

All the best for 2010 to you too.

 

John.

[Vagabond]

I agree it is a huge compromise for anglers of an older generation, giving up what they consider to be their right, but times have changed and "there are just too many other threats" to natural fish stocks to allow the taking of two for the pot to continue, this is just a small piece of the jigsaw to ensure future generations of anglers, have fish to fish for on our rivers.......my opinion of course!

 

Bob (and others thinking along these lines) just consider this scenario.

 

1 Catching coarse fish for the pot gets banned

2 At the next election (or some other one after that) there is a hung parliament.

3 About half a dozen MPs with anti-angling views and belonging to one of the fringe parties, now hold the balance of power.

4. Their "price" for supporting one of the major parties is the banning of "catch in order to release" (ie purposeless in their view) angling.

5. The major party, anxious to hang onto their seats, expenses, perks and prestige, agrees.

 

So now both "fishing for the pot" and " catch in order to release" would be illegal.

That would be the end of coarse fishing in England and Wales.

 

DON'T assume it couldn't happen. It HAS HAPPENED ALREADY in Germany.

Fortunately for German anglers, they did not voluntary surrender their right to fish for the pot, so angling in Germany is still possible, albeit under very stringent rules - like you must kill what you catch (subject to a plethora of caveats).

 

If German anglers had already surrendered their right to fish for the pot, then they would have had nowhere to go.

 

Protect our stocks with LOCALLY DETERMINED bag limits and slot limits - not blanket bans.

Every river is different and requires different management - blanket bans are the tool of the lazy career politician who can't be bothered with detail. The various differing rules hanging over from the days of local river boards were all there for good reason. They do not need "tidying up", they need careful review rather than replacement with blanket rules.

 

re your "there are just too many other threats" - that is the problem - these threats are difficult to tackle (insidious pollution, urban run-off, abstraction, general degradation of environment, etc etc) and the bureaucrats are only too anxious to both sweep these under the carpet and to "be seen to be doing something"

 

It seems difficult to get across that the RIGHT to eat what you catch is very different from "if every angler ate everything caught". I have never eaten a roach in my life, but think it important to retain the right to do so rather than surrender the right to fish for them at all.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Vagabond

[Steve Walker]

My opinion is that expressed in percentage's would be an eye opener to many

 

What, the % of fish which are ultimately killed and eaten by predators?

 

I should think it's most of them, as it should be.

[Tigger]

John,

 

I would hope anglers opinions have been formed from personal experience (brings originality, new idea's and fishing improvements etc), and not just from from being peer pressured or simply agreeing with the "acceptable view" or "school of thought".

 

Sometimes on this forum there is a censorship of others opinions.

 

People keep on about the end of fishing.....as we speak who exactly in this country (with the support of the public or a massive membership), is trying to ban fishing?

 

I did indeed ask for the full picture, i.e. the effect ALL predator's have on fish stocks. Is it bad for an angler to want to know this kind of information? Am I not allowed to ask?

 

My opinion is that expressed in percentage's would be an eye opener to many but as I have said, its guaranteed never to happen. Blaming poles for dwindling stocks on rivers is too simplistic and I think they are taking the full blame for ALL predators..and now we have these new Laws as a result.

 

Anyway, tight lines for 2010.

Jeff

 

 

 

I used to be a full time Gamekeeper many years ago and any predator of fur or feather was shot, trapped or poisoned and hung on the vermin rack to show the guns and owners what a good job we where doing. I think you would have fitted in in those days as I think you have a similar view of predators. Thankfully nowadays keepers are encouraged (most not all) to leave predators other than mink. rats etc alone and realise that the ammount of game they take really doesn't affect the well being of the shoot. That's one reason shoots are like nature reserves and are havens for wildlife as virtually everything thrives. If certain pred's do grow in number to unhealthy numbers then they get a bit of a cull but that's mainly creatures that can multiply pretty quick when there's an abundance of grub.

I think the main killer of fish stocks is humans either by pollution or habitat destruction and the creatures that eat them to survive should be left alone . The foreigners dont help mind !

[Leedobson]

Well, I 've been fishing since I was about 12 [ 35 now ] and I've never even seen a bailiff nevermind had my licence checked by one...I think hiring more of them might be a good idea !

[Jeffwill]

I used to be a full time Gamekeeper many years ago and any predator of fur or feather was shot, trapped or poisoned and hung on the vermin rack to show the guns and owners what a good job we where doing. I think you would have fitted in in those days as I think you have a similar view of predators. Thankfully nowadays keepers are encouraged (most not all) to leave predators other than mink. rats etc alone and realise that the ammount of game they take really doesn't affect the well being of the shoot. That's one reason shoots are like nature reserves and are havens for wildlife as virtually everything thrives. If certain pred's do grow in number to unhealthy numbers then they get a bit of a cull but that's mainly creatures that can multiply pretty quick when there's an abundance of grub.

I think the main killer of fish stocks is humans either by pollution or habitat destruction and the creatures that eat them to survive should be left alone . The foreigners dont help mind !

 

You right Tigger, in particular the gamekeepers persecution of raptors over the years should have seen some made an example of and maybe jailed. How long were you a Gamekeeper? Did you get out of it quickly not liking what you were asked to do?

 

I think its debateable comparing "Nature reserves" to pheasant shoots where corn is put down by man to keep birds (pheasants) in the area ready for the next shoot but I know what you mean about other species enjoying the corn and thriving. Plus the grounds would be private and wildlife would be undisturbed (except shoot days).

 

Tight lines Tigger for 2010

Regards, Jeff.