Fish Removed From Nature Reserve

[Elton]

http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/news/articles/656.html

[Steve Walker]

As Vagabond said in another discussion:

 

quote:

---

The logical reaction to the "duty of care" for anyone owning land beside a stretch of water would therefore be to not provide any facilities at all - and to be doubly sure of avoiding liability, to forbid access altogether.

 

That would be the supreme irony - fishing eventually extinguished, not by the anti-field-sport fanatics, but snuffed out by the nanny state "for our own protection". It could even happen indirectly by compulsory insurance premiums rising to prohibitive levels.

---

Vagabond, you don't happen also to know next week's lottery numbers, do you?

[Ken L]

No fish =

No Herons.

No Kingfishers.

No Grebes.

No Otters.

 

It what way is it a "Nature Reserve" ?

[Vagabond]

Steve Walker:

Vagabond, you don't happen also to know next week's lottery numbers, do you?

No

 

...but what could have been predicted, given that the anglers' cause was championed by a Countryside Alliance spokesman, is the deafening silence from the CA bashers on this forum!

 

(Stand by for a rant from you-know-who)

 

 

There is scope for a scientific paper here,

 

"Possibility of fish extinction consequent upon the presence of electricity pylons"

 

[ 06. October 2005, 02:28 AM: Message edited by: Vagabond ]

[Peter Waller]

As one who is involved with a body that removes fish from conservation areas I suppose I had better rise to the bait!

 

I object to removal where the sole object is to prevent anglers fishing. In this case the removal is counter to conservation considerations, surely.

 

But fish removal, on the Broads, is based on sound conservation research. There is no doubt that aquatic habitats and fish stocks are out of kilter in many areas. It is only by removing fish that the water flea can regain a foothold. We need the waterflea to gobble phosphates and other man made nasties. Once the environment is back on course, fish, other than that aquatic JCB, the carp, are allowed to recolonize what must be fishy heaven!

 

Vagabond, I have had my say about the CA, almost ad nauseum. I stand by that opinion. This is just another nauseating example of the CA grabbing a PR opportunity off the back of angling.

 

[ 06. October 2005, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[Vagabond]

...and I too have been involved in removing fish by electro-methods - but only in keeping with sound fishery management requirements.

 

The example discussed here is very far removed from that :mad:

 

Poor old CA ! If they do nothing, they are "ineffective" If they actually DO something they are "grabbing a PR opportunity"

 

....and next week's lottery numbers are.. Edited out - no-one reading this "needs to know"

 

[ 06. October 2005, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: Vagabond ]

[Peter Waller]

If the CA do nothing then I am greatly relieved!!

 

But, Vagabond, we do agree on your second paragraph, entirely.

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Chaps,

 

I honestly don't know what Peter Waller has against C&A. I mourned the department stores passing off the streets of Nottingham as I used to buy all my fox hunting clip on dickie bows from there. Stylish little numbers that used to light up, whirld round and play God Save The Queen.

 

I'm just glad I'm normal.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Peter Waller]

I just see the CA for what they are Lee. Thought that we had gone into that in some depth in the dull, repetitive and dreary past. You don't really want to rekindle old fires do you?

[slodger]

Peter,

 

Not wishing to drag up old subjects as you've said, but considering that they will never turn around the Fox hunting ban, at least not in my opinion, doesn't the remaining broader remit of the CA have any appeal to you?