The end is nigh for livebaiting nationally!!!!

[greg long]

I HAVE INITIATED A POLL TO SEE HOW MANY OF THE ANGLERS HAVE CARRIED FISH FROM ONE WATER TO ANOTHER IN THE FISHING POLLS. CAN WE HAVE HONEST ANSWERS PLEASE AS THE RESULTS COULD BE SURPRISING IF EVERYBODY IS TRUTHFUL RATHER THAN POLITICALLY CORRECT!

[Dave Lumb]

Greg seems to have totally missed the point of the ban. It has nothing to do with the potential for the introduction of disease.

 

The ban is to try and prevent anglers introducing fish to lakes which might compete with 'rare' indigenous species. The fact that non-indigenous fish are now present in these waters (from whatever source) seems not to matter as there are no efforts being made to remove them.

 

Peter's three is at least four!

 

Dave

[greg long]

Dave Lumb:

Greg seems to have totally missed the point of the ban. It has nothing to do with the potential for the introduction of disease.

 

The ban is to try and prevent anglers introducing fish to lakes which might compete with 'rare' indigenous species. The fact that non-indigenous fish are now present in these waters (from whatever source) seems not to matter as there are no efforts being made to remove them.

Dave, perhaps you should read my first post on this topic. However the phrase from whatever source speaks volumes for the reasons for the ban.

Peter's three is at least four!

 

Dave

[Eddie]

Dave Lumb:

Greg seems to have totally missed the point of the ban. It has nothing to do with the potential for the introduction of disease.

 

The ban is to try and prevent anglers introducing fish to lakes which might compete with 'rare' indigenous species. The fact that non-indigenous fish are now present in these waters (from whatever source) seems not to matter as there are no efforts being made to remove them.

 

Peter's three is at least four!

 

Dave

The fish die due to disease or the fish die due to starvation and displacement, is there a difference to the final outcome, their still dead! If we`re going to split hairs over this what chance have we got with the overall picture.

[Steve Burke]

I really despair with the way this thread is going! It seems that some who don't livebait for pike themselves are in favour of, or at the very least have an "I'm all right Jack" attitude about the EA's action. So much for unity!

 

Personally, I haven't livebaited for pike for many years, much preferring to lure fish with the occasional bit of deadbaiting. However, I defend the right of those who want to do so.

 

I do however live and deadbait for perch. Now perch very, very rarely take sea baits. So if I'm after the big predatory perch, which in the Lake District almost exclusively eat fish, I'll have to use lures and accept their limitations.

 

And please don't say you can catch big perch on worms etc. You can, but on the Lakes they are much inferior to fish baits for the specimens - as a scientific study (Exceptionally Big Perch and their Growth by Le Cren) clearly showed.

 

However, I very much condemn those selfish anglers who move livebaits from water to water. When I was young this was an accepted practice as it wasn't realised then that damage could result and there was thus no ban on doing so. Since then I have never, ever, moved livebaits, even when it has reduced my chances of catching. IMO, anyone who now does so deserves all he gets!

 

I'd ask all who seem not to be bothered about the EA's action to re-read this and the other thread on the subject very carefully.

 

In particular please take note that the ban on livebaits and coarse deadbaits doesn't just apply to those waters where vendace are present. In other words the vendace issue looks like a smokescreen. The Lake District today, maybe your waters tomorrow!

[Wag]

Peter Waller:

Peter Waller:

I, for one, agree with Greg's thinking.

That makes three of us!

Four!

 

[ 03 August 2002, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Wag ]

[Jim Roper]

Steve Burke:

I really despair with the way this thread is going! It seems that some who don't livebait for pike themselves are in favour of, or at the very least have an "I'm all right Jack" attitude about the EA's action. So much for unity!

The same thing happened in the shooting world when users of semi-automatic rifles were abandoned by the traditional single shot target rifle users at the top end of the NRA hierachy. Then it happened again to pistol shooters.

 

A few years ago there was pressure to ban shark fishing off Cornwall.

 

The people behind that one are still out there.

 

Now how many anglers have caught a shark? Not all 6 million! Only a MINORITY!! A bit like the BIG GAME fishermen!! Only a MINORITY!!

Not as many as the 57,000 pistol shooters.

 

THINK ON

 

Jim Roper

 

http://www.march-info.org

http://www.thisisdorset.net

http://www.searchlineuk.com/FishList.htm

[greg long]

I personally have live-bait fished for Pike prior to the ban in Ireland, just because I can see merit in an argument for the banning of live-bait on ecological grounds does not mean I have "an I'm all right Jack attitude" to the ban. If certain Anglers are worried about this argument being divisive they should moderate words such as trout angler and non live bait anglers it is they who are creating a divide. If I see a different viewpoint whether I fish for Pike,with or without live-bait, or not fish for Pike at all does not make my viewpoint any less relevant. Anglers first priority should lie with the fish and thier environment, this goes for all anglers,our sport depends on our quarry thriving, not on whether we all "stick together" on all issues. If the ban was without merits I would not trying to defend it and I would certainly not object to the antis views in such a scornful way. Those who term me as either a trout angler or not a live-bait angler, do not know me very well,although I have fished for my country as an international TROUT angler I have fished for "coarse" fish for 20 odd years and have caught 2 pike over 40lb to boot! Disparaging remarks about us do not lessen our arguments :mad: :mad: :mad: anglingireland.info

[greg long]

PS. your votes on the poll are notable by thier absence!

[Dave Lumb]

If the ban was genuinely aimed at conserving vendace and charr why wasn't it accompanied by legislation/efforts to: remove existing populations of unwanted fish species; stop charr being sold by anglers; reverse the ecological changes that threaten the habitats?

 

Dave