DILEMMA or changing values?

[Guest trent.barbeler]

Peter,

Before responing on your thread, can I just ask, are you reffering to rivers when you pose the suggestion for a two rod limit on anglers.

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Graham, a good question about a National bye-law maximum 2 rod limit on rivers. If you think that this proposal would be well supported and that it might help further the cause of angling unity, then I will raise it at the first appropriate SAA meeting. This would probably be the first one after the formative meeting.

 

Bear in mind that I might not apply or be elected to a committee position. However as I type this I have just spoken to the Secretary of the Perchfishers, of which I'm a member and representative, and asked him to add this to their AGM agenda in April for discussion. If this is favourable then as the Perchfishers rep I can raise it at the following SAA meeting.

 

Sorry Paul I know you asked for a straight yes or no answer but as you can see until the SAA is properly formed and constituted that is the best I can do.

 

From a purely personal point of view I don't have a problem with a max 2 rod limit on rivers, I do not fish the really big rivers so am not sure what sort of impact or problems multi rod fishing has on them, if any. However I do have plenty of experience pike and zander fishing on the fenland drains, and when things are especially hard, fish with 3 rods. Here it doesn't present a problem as often you have many miles of drain all to yourself.

 

Alan.

 

[This message has been edited by Alan Pearce (edited 25 March 2001).]

[Guest Graham E]

Alan, you may have got a bit muddled as to who posted what. I wouldn't ask for a BY-Law, just a recommendation would show intent. That would be one big step towards Unity....if you follow my reasoning!

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Sorry Graham you have lost me now, I have had a very busy day and may be at the 'thick' stage. Lets start again, what exactly are you looking for?

 

Alan

[Guest andy jack]

Originally posted by Peter Waller:

Since we are now back on the cursed multi rod rule issue may I suggest a reasonable compromise for the forthcoming SAA to consider. Quite simply that two rods be the maximum numbers of rods used by anyone angler unless the owner of the non tidal water allows otherwise, exactly in line with the close season exemptions.

 

Owners of waters can dictate how many rods can be used, under the current rules. Reason being, that water owners are better placed than anyone else to decide how many are reasonable. You are well within your rights to voice your dissaproval, if any club or owner, has got it wrong, in your oppinion.

What is the difference with that, and what you were proposing.

[Guest Peter Waller]

What I feel is a sensible route, both for conservation and for unity, is that navigable, tidal waters, e.g. Rivers, have a two rod limit placed on them. These public waters have next to no control placed upon them and clearly, whilst four rods is arguably acceptable in the hands of some anglers, they become dangerous weapons in the hands of an uncaring majority. On still waters, where the owner can dictate and control the ammount of rods being used then this does not constitute a major problem. Like a close season, the rod quantity should be down to the owner of a private water.

In my original question I had not considered the issue of changing values as being related to the multi rod question although, in hindsight, it clearly is. But ethics aside, a word that I know winds some folk up, as a pike angler I cringe when I see pike anglers with four rods out, the evidence soon being clear that totally insufficient care is being taken in bite detection. I really, and deeply resent the actions of those whose influence allowed this rule change in a situation where responsible overall control does not exist.

 

[This message has been edited by Peter Waller (edited 25 March 2001).]

[Guest waterman1013]

Peter

 

I think you are right, we live in a time of changing values. What would have been considered unsporting forty or fifty years ago is now accepted by many anglers, and probably by the majority of specialist anglers, be they carpers, pikers or barbelers.

 

Personally, I do not like much of what I see in modern angling, but I accept that I am an “old fart” and probably in no position to judge others. I simply fish in the style I was brought up to and which I find acceptable. Self hooking rigs were not acceptable to sportsmen then and I would like to think that the sporting ethic of those days may return. But then the moon may be made of cream cheese.

 

I don’t think this is about carp anglers or bivvie boys. I think the modern world has moved on and some of us find that increasingly difficult from a moral perspective. That does not mean we are right and they are wrong. We just come from different times. I sometimes use a brolly camp when fishing for zander or pike, but I use it as a tent and never fish unless I am sitting on my rods. When I tire I go to sleep, having pulled the baits in. That is my choice. I may frown on others who continue to fish in their sleep but that still does not make them wrong, just different from me. I do know that they miss a lot of zander! As long as the fish are not damaged by angling activity, who can say which of us is right and which wrong?

 

Graham

 

Yes the fish counts, because modern anglers accept that the method used is sporting. The question regarding “should it?” depends on our own perspective. For some of us it should not, for others it would.

 

Gaffer

 

I don’t think the posts are necessarily “anti-carper”. It seems to me that they are just anti modern methods, which by definition would include most successful carpers. I can see why you should be uneasy with the attitudes some of us hold, it is just a shame that some are not more reticent in publishing their views and the language they use to promote them.

 

I think Scott is right, “carp anglers” suffer abuse from a section of anglers simply because there are so many of them and it is a numbers game. The more you have the more idiots will get involved in the short term. Unfortunately in the early days of the Colne Valley there appear to have been any number of idiots, who seemed to think fishing was about getting tanked up and having a vindaloo and chips prior to sleeping through the best fishing hours, and more importantly wrote at length about their "adventures”.

 

Andy Jack

 

Many rules have been introduced by clubs and societies, which on the face of it appear to discriminate against carp anglers. As secretary of a fishing club I can see why some of these rules have been introduced. As the requirement for night fishing grew, from the early days, when we slept out under brollies on a “Woolworth’s” sun lounger, to the modern angler equipped with dome and all the equipment the problem of litter on our fisheries grew as did the problem of badly prepared baits.

 

“No seeds, nuts or pulses” rules are generally there to protect fish from the idiots who hear about these baits but do not try to find out how they should be prepared. They are not aimed at “carp anglers” but at protecting fish. “No night fishing” is often in the terms of fishery leases from the riparian owner, but all too often is used by clubs to discriminate against specialists. The limitation on lead sizes is used as a way of stopping the use of self hooking rigs and reflects the problems posed by Peter's original question and the different attitudes between anglers of different generations. All we can do to get what we may consider sensible rules adopted in our clubs is to attend the AGM, propose a change in the rule, and persuade other members to vote in our favour.

 

I think this debate begins to enter the arena of “how much democracy” should there be in any angling club. I take the view that the committee should run the waters and the club to the rules it wants. After all if they are unsuccessful the committee take the flack. It is very hard to run a club on democratic lines, for the simple reason that there are always anglers who want to ban this or that, normally methods they do not use, at the expense of other members.

 

Steve Burke has the right idea regarding rules. As few as possible, which should be all encompassing.

 

Graham, you should not assume, as you seem to, that SAA will rule by dictat. SAA will have no power to impose its view on clubs or societies, regarding still waters or rivers. It may offer advice, it may put guidance notes into a revised Code of Conduct, but that will be decided by the members at the time the document is edited. It is good that Alan will raise it as a topic for consideration in the new code, but the document will remain just that, a code.

 

Could I clarify the four rod rule. SACG originally went to the EA looking for three rods, as a compromise between the various limits, then in existence around the country, The EA proposed four rods and SACG accepted their proposal, which was based by the EA on the fact that an angler would need a second licence anyway for three rods and therefore should have the full use of that second licence. I think that possibly the reality of uncontrolled waters was not considered at the time and has only become apparent as a problem since the new bylaw was introduced.

 

The call for two rods maximum on rivers may suit those of us who fish small fast flowing streams. Two rods may not suit those of us who fish wider, slow flowing reaches for species other than barbel. The choice should be left to the angler. At the end of the day it is his conscience he has to live with, not ours. At least we have got away from the days when an angler could legally fish as many rods as he wanted.

 

Peter Waller suggests that the responsibility should lie with the owner of the water concerned, which is exactly what the laws state. Peter, non tidal does not include the full length of a river. And the amount of public access water on most rivers is pretty limited.

 

Hopefully these questions will be addressed by SAA, with all single species groups taking an active interest in resolving them. The future is unpredictable but the more threads that appear here on questions like this the more “angling leaders” have an idea of what concerns the thinking angler of today. Let us hope so.

 

Mike

[Guest Peter Waller]

A heartening reply from Mike. Re tidal waters and public access. From my own perspective, the Norfolk & Suffolk Broads, public access is as it should be, practically total, albeit by boat. Unfortunately the four rod rule was probably never considered from the Broads point of view. Quite simply the vast majority of Broads specialist angling is from boats. It almost certainly needs to be, if you want to succeed.

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Peter with the greatest of respect you are just trawling over old ground. If YOU have a problem with multi rod fishing on the broads then discuss this with the Broads Authority and any other water managers concerned. The NACA have alot of influence here speak to them, give me old mate Chris Turnbull A call. Before when you said you had a problem on the Broads I offered mine and the SACG's help, this you declined. Stop harping on like a broken record or you will end up in the old farts club.

 

Alan

 

[This message has been edited by Alan Pearce (edited 27 March 2001).]

[Guest Graham E]

Mike/Alan I think a "recommendation" would be ideal.

 

Ref fish counting. And here I mean for record purposes

If a fish was handlined would that count?

Would a fish that has been released from a snag by hand count / in a boat?

A fish that has had the rod passed to another angler does not (barbel record)

If the rod was left on the bank whilst released, would it count.

Any BRFC posters here?