The end is nigh for livebaiting nationally!!!!

['eelfisher']

Dear ALL

 

At the start to this thread I called for the NAA to get up and do something....bugger all has come about as yet....not even a 'press-release' deploring the actions of the N/W EA.

 

However, I am assured they are out there somewhere, on all of our behalf's.

 

......And when the mists clear, what will we see standing in the clearing opposite the attackers of our sport called angling.....Zilch, nadder, nothing...those who were there, so we were told, will be sitting in the CA in nice paid jobs and thinking of other things.

 

I hope not.

 

Yours With Respect......and still hoping

 

Steve.

PS...Thought I should add some of these

 

[ 06. August 2002, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: 'eelfisher' ]

[Bruno Broughton]

I would have intervened in this post before now, had I not been so busy tiddling my CA salary up the wall, chasing rainbows and sitting round the campfire.

 

Can anyone tell me how a press release can be released immediately (on the one hand), when it should only happen after full consultation with the members of the organisation involved (on the other)... and consultation with organisations which aren't even in membership (I make that three hands).

 

When the NW livebaiting issue was raised at the NAA, it was agreed that the SAA would lead on this matter. In so doing, it had - and has - the full support of the other NAA members.

 

Remember: the NAA is not a separate organisation; it is the sum of its parts (NFA, NFSA, S&TA, NAFAC, SAA and ATA).

 

Several of us, myself included, lodged our objections to the proposed changes, and I - for one - posted on here about the lack of science, and logic, behind the proposals. In the NW this has been rumbling on for a decade or more, and the die was probably cast when the (Warren Committee) Salmon & Freshwater Fisheries Review Group made specific reference to what might be in the offing.

 

I am gob-smacked that no-one has so far correctly allocated the blame for the situation we are now in... on the prat who was caught with a bucket of illegal livos on the banks of a NW lake. That 'in yer face' act effectively sealed the fate of livebaiting in the NW.

 

It's time to grow up, IMHO. Stroke-pullers seem to be revered in angling, yet it is they who drag our sport down and are instrumental in fostering these kind of restrictions.

 

What it boils down to is this: if you are not prepared to shop the perpetrators of such illegal acts (environmental crime, some would say), how the chuffing heck do you expect people like me to stand up to the beaurocrats and - eye to eye - state that anglers are blameless?

 

On a parallel vein, please don't 'dis' people who give up their time to try to represent angling if you shun membership of the very organisations that give them that platform. Please tell me: who should pay for the travel to the meetings, the phone bills to sort out press releases, and the postage costs the effect the communication you crave? Or should your representatives not only be 'self elected' but also 'self funded'? That should give us plenty of clout at cross-disciplinary meeetings. Or not.

 

If the answer is: not me mate, someone else is paying... well, you should know the rest.

 

Better go - I have a clearing to..? To? Ah, yes, a clearing to clear!

[Peter Waller]

Bruno, I accept what you say. But it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

 

There is a BIG but. Surely, even if the SAA and PAC did the donkey work, the 'protest' should have been presented under the NAA banner as a means of giving it both weight and credibility.

 

As has already been said, the CA, irrespective of the MOU, has already found time to express its opinion of the situation.

 

A 'press release' has been released by the SAA, seems to me that the NAA could have done so as well.

 

Your point about the idiot that was caught with a bucket of illegal livebait is a valid one. There does appear to be an acceptence of rule bending/breaking in the specialist world.

 

Bruno, the lack of apparent action on this matter does, in my humble opinion, give rise for considerable concern as to the effectiveness of the NAA in its present state.

 

Personally I think the NAA should, very publically, have ****ed the rule breaking angler from one side of the kingdom to the other. Named and shamed him. If he was a member of the PAC he should have been thrown out on his moronic ear. The NAA should then have presented, very loudly, the case on behalf of the SAA and the PAC etc. As things are it appears that the NAA is impotant.

 

You have made an important point about finance. The CA has managed to gain sponsorship. The ACA gains cash effectively from a number of sources. The NFA keeps its head above water, or so it seems. Money can be aquired.

 

[ 07. August 2002, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[Nugg]

Bruno Broughton:

 

 

I am gob-smacked that no-one has so far correctly allocated the blame for the situation we are now in... on the prat who was caught with a bucket of illegal livos on the banks of a NW lake. That 'in yer face' act effectively sealed the fate of livebaiting in the NW.

 

!

And what exactly happened to this guy? Only last season we heard of several anglers being caught fishing without a licence. They were fined large sums of money, with some having their gear cofiscated aswell, dose it follow that we who are within the law should suffer the same fate, of course not. It would be unjust. I therefore refute that argument.

PLEASE everyone make sure that you park your car legally, I don't want mine towed away because you didn't, as it seems we all get tarred with the same brush by some these days.

 

Adding smiles:-

[dreamer]

I think I agree with Nugg on this one, whilst in an ideal world we could sort out the stroke pullers, in reality this is not going to happen. Those that are determined will continue to flaunt the rules and the new ban is, on the whole, unlikely to deter them. It's like drugs and prostitution, you can make them illegal, you can implement zero tollerance, but they still happen.

 

If we cannot campaign for our future unless rule breaking is eliminated then I am afraid we are sunk. I agree it does not make the job easy but when did you ever see a politician gave up an argument because the facts put them in a difficult position.

 

Regards

[quinntas]

i own a quarter of a mile of private canal in west london and about three years ago i noticed quite a few fish with open ulcers on thier bodies suspecting polution i called in the enviroment agency.after taking water samples they told me that this was the result of low oxygene,i explained to the officer that fish float on thier sides gasping when oxygene is low and do not develope open sores.they said "we have given you the reason it is up to you to accept it" i knew they were fobbing me off so i called the angling times, after a couple of hours the editor called me ad told me that when he threatened to do an article on it they admitted that they had cleared a lake of diseased fish and put them into the local canal,we are still seeing diseased fish to this day.so i tend to believe that disease can be carried from one water to another.

[Mick]

Bruno Broughton:

 

I am gob-smacked that no-one has so far correctly allocated the blame for the situation we are now in... on the prat who was caught with a bucket of illegal livos on the banks of a NW lake. That 'in yer face' act effectively sealed the fate of livebaiting in the NW.

I find it stunning that it has taken so long for Brunos comment to appear .... not the fact that a prat with a bucket is the cause but that the policing needed to catch said prat is part of the reason.

 

Facts ...

 

The Freshwater bait ban is on waters that contain either Vendace or Charr. If disease introduction was the worry here than whole systems would have bans on them. For example, Windermere contains Charr ... ban on .... Grasmere, Rydal and Esthwaite do not contain Charr and despite them being in the Windermere catchment system they have no ban on. (That said Esthwaite has its own strict rules which may have come into play and WADAA also have their own rules).

 

It does appear that disease isn't seen as the threat but non indigenous species are. However, dead non-indigenous species pose no threat if disease introduction is discounted and live non indigenous species if caught from that water also present no problem. Trouble is, how do you tell what comes from where. This is where the problem lies ... there have been many prats with buckets apprehended on the shores of a NW lake but how do you prove where those fish came from. The NRA/EA couldn't. For years anglers have been getting off because the case could not be proven. The EA/NRA **knew** the fish were coming in but as most of the lakes contain the species already in the bucket what proof could they find.

 

Just over ten years ago there was an attempt to ban livebaiting in the Lakes which failed. (I had a small hand in fighting that action). The situation was to be monitored however. Today the numbers of pike anglers has increased greatly from the early 90's and consequently the threat of introduced fish has spiralled. All this time anglers have been bringing their own bait in buckets .. there is no point in denying it ... it happens.

 

In all this time the NRA has become the EA. They have had their Government funding reduced and have had to make cutbacks. Now the old Close Season in the NW was abolished because it could not be policed. The EA cannot stop anglers bringing in live baits ... there are not enough bailiffs IMO to do this job. Even if there were, they would still struggle for decent proof. So ... banning livebaits would seem to be the obvious thing to do but that would still require extensive policing and remember, the EA is strapped for cash. So the next best thing is to draw a line. Anything marine is OK, anything freshwater is illegal.

 

This leaves the rather obvious bit regarding dead non indigenous fish not being a problem. In which case they should be fine to use as bait. Well that's as maybe unless you wish to cut costs. To cut costs you need to shed jobs. Apparently, I have bben informed, the number of EA bailiffs in the NW is to be halved. So you make clear cut rules, assume the anglers are law abiding and get rid of the bailffs. Costs cut ..... problem solved. Its somewhat devious and terribly political.

 

What it doesn't do however is take the angling stance and ask how do you now fish for Perch or Eels? It also takes no account of the fact that there have been cyprinids in many of the lakes for many, many years ... Roach were caught in the Perch nettings in the 40's in Windermere. It takes no account of the fact that water quality has changed, very rapidly over the past few years, and allowed cyprinids to thrive in waters where, in reality they should not. The Vendace in Bassenthwaite is threatened far more by the shortcomings over the past ten years in the overworked Keswick sewerage treatment works than by the introduction of non indigenous species. It is the deterioration of water quality linked to increasing water temperatures that have allowed small pockets of cyprinids to explode in numbers over the past ten years ... of course then you have to add all those fish brought in buckets aswell.

 

So ... in a drive to "clean up" the "contaminated" lakes now all those horrible coarse fish won't keep on being added. Are the sewerage treatment works to be upgraded? Will we still see evidence of sewerage overflow on Grasmere? (Don't drink the water). Probably, as it all costs money.

 

What about all those non indigenous fish already setting up home in various parts of Cumbria ... whts to be dome with them? Well, nothing really as you can't get them out and it would cost money anyway.

 

What about the endangered Charr? Will anglers have to stop catching them? No ... there are plenty of Charr .... the EA have made sure of that haven't they? (Do you know I used to use them exclusively for bait once ... if only I had realised the damage I was doing)

 

So ... there is my 2c worth. Yes, its a prat with a bucket. Its water quality. Its cost cutting. Its a way of making the rules very, very simple so we don't need bailiffs to police them ....

... possibly.

 

Its also possibly the only way the EA have got to stop anglers transferring live baits without actually banning baits altogether.

 

I don't agree with it and have protested .... but I can see their point of view.

 

Flame away ....

 

--

Mick

[Chris Playle]

I'm probably going to get shot for this question but, hell, it's a discussion forum.

 

I've never really seen the point in livebaiting when so many big pike and perch have been caught on lures and deadbaits. My reasons for not seeing the point in livebaiting is one simple comparison.....thus....

 

What's the difference ???

 

A roach about 4" impaled on treble hooks on a wire trace suspended under a large float. Still alive and swimming around waiting for a pike to eat it.

 

A carp or pike of about 12" long impaled on some larger treble hooks suspended under a bigger float swimming around waiting for some laviathan from the deep to eat it.

 

Appart from the fact that Carp and pike are seldom, if ever, used as livebait. Say Carp became the in-bait for, say, Shark fishing? Nice and fat on boilies and pellets...lovely gold colour to shimmer in the water and attract attention....Travesty I hear from the Session Carpers??? I know many a day ticket mud hole stacked full of livebait.

 

The only difference I can see are:

 

Scale - actual size of the fish and the rig.

 

Fish - We post up threads about a Carp being left with hooks and method feeders attached and pike with trebles left in there jaws, we lovingly dab antiseptic on carp hook holes in their lips. Yet we ague IN DEFENCE of a practice that WILLINGLY leaves hooks in the sides of fish for hours on end for the sake of catching other fish.

 

Nothing short of Hypocritical. :mad:

 

Sorry, I will lovingly defend the sport of angling but I will NEVER agree to practices that infer prolonged suffering on fish of ANY species.

 

Tight Lines

 

Chris.

[Elton]

Chris Playle:

 

Nothing short of Hypocritical. :mad:

Probably best if you don't go fishing if you're that concerned, Chris. You stick hooks in fish just like the rest of us. It's not necessary, unless you need to fish to eat, I suppose.

 

Tight lines,

 

Elton

[Elton]

Just one last point (and this isn't aimed at Chris - he's brought up a point that is in the mind of many anglers) - just where do we draw the line between angling and cruelty?

 

The antis want that line made very clear, so that they can keep moving it nearer and nearer to a ban. As anglers, we need to be very careful where we see it now...and in the future. Their policy of "divide and conquer" is working already.

 

And please remember, not every anti is a beardy-weirdy with a Greenpeace badge and Afghan coat - some of them wear suits and work for Government.

 

Tight lines,

 

Elton