Martin Salter and Mark Lloyd fail to deliver again

[barry luxton]

Barry,

 

Just a brief comment. I follow these issues over here with an "arms length interest. It is engaging to me you use terms like "arrogent few" and "on the masses". You sound American. The "needs" of our Gulf coast, West coast and our East coast are so different you make it sound like the UK is equally diversified.

 

Are you being a bit theatrical given the size of the UK?

 

Phone

 

The uk is diversified, the greenies love control and love imposing, the freshwater guys have control, the salties don't, or see the need.

or, just been listening to a lot of Americans.

[Phone]

Barry,

 

Ha ha!

 

I can't believe we have an influance of British angling.

 

Phone

[andy_youngs]

Barry,

 

Ha ha!

 

I can't believe we have an influance of British angling.

 

Phone

You don't, not directly anyway. But we can all learn from each other, and I think the Old World can learn some very important lessons from the New.

 

I remember fishing a tiny little trout stream in New Zealand about 20 years when some canoeists passed through. I enquired later with some local anglers whether such disruption aggrivated them in any way, and was told in no uncertain terms that their forebears had left the shores of England precisely to get away from that sort of 'landowner bullsh$t'. Rivers, they said, are a public resource that are there for everyone to enjoy.

 

From my experience, similar sentiments exist throughout North America, Canada, Australia, etc. Everywhere in fact, with the exception of England, Wales and Iraq.

[Phone]

Andy,

 

Sadly, or gladly, depending on your side of the fence. We, in America, agree with OZ. (Unless said water empoundment begins and ends on your property - then it's yours.)

 

However, sadly, (IMO) we tax the use of public land, moving water and flat water, all three. (Remember, as above all water is "public".)

 

Comes down to a philosophical difference. One, what's good for the majority is good for the individual - - - or - - - - what good for the individual is good for the majority. Money talks while BS walks.

 

Since the beginning of time, as I've read history, the golden rule applies. "The guy with the gold makes the rules". (at least on public waterways)

 

I believe some should enjoy our vast natural resources more than others. The more money that can be "extorted" from a group or individual the more enjoyment they deserve. Free enterprise, one man one vote, at its best. No free lunch. Right now, our "biggie" is should "big oil" be allowed to drill on public land. I know that is NOT the subject of this thread. But, as sure as God made little green apples - now or later - it will happen.

 

Phone

Edited January 8, 2012 by Phone

[andy_youngs]

I don't have any preconceived ideas about angling being more important than anything Andy, just realistic that angling has for many years had a relationship with landowners etc, (through negotiations), that has given them access to waters. You seem to want them to give up the product of of these years of negotiations, and get nothing in return. There are areas where voluntary access has been given, some have worked, others haven't. You seem to want to live in an ideal world where everyone shares and everything is fair, (wouldn't we all), but it isn't an ideal world, and I think you are being naive in thinking that it could be. As things stand now, the only way canoeists are going to get what they want (legally), is by organising, and negotiating access. People own land, and choose who can enter that land, and what they can do on it. So, unless you are of the opinion that 'all ownership is theft', and people should have the freedom to roam at will, you have to recognise that.

I think you're being naive if you think I'm going stand idly by and allow this situation to perpetuate without trying to put my point of view across. I don't agree that the only way to legally canoe a river is to negotiate an access agreement. I think access agreements are a spurious diversion, and a scandelous waste of money during a time supposed austerity. Paddling without landowners consent is definitly not a criminal offence, and probably not even a civil offence. So the moment an angler shouts "Oi you, you're not allowed to canoe through here" then he is committing the criminal offence of verbal assault. That means he can, and should be arrested. Most canoeists are becoming increasingly clued up over this.

 

I should not have to be pointing this out to anglers. The Angling Trust should be doing that.

 

Anglers do have to have proof of a rod licence on them, and produce it when asked. Canoeists can do damage, and be long gone before anyone can ask to see any licence. So it would be logical to have it displayed on the boat, so it can be seen at a distance, and the culprit reported. It's beginning to look like you want access but no legislation governing it. Freedom to go and do whatever you want, well, nobody has that, not even anglers.

So anglers have proof of a rod license on them do they? Get real John, in over 40 years of angling I've only been asked to produce a rod license once, and as it happenned I'd left it at home. It was a bailiff from the NRA (forerunners of Environment Agency) that was doing the asking. I gave him my full name and address, and promised to send him a photocopy of the license, I got a bit of a ticking off, but he was ok for me to carry on fishing. At the time I resented it, and I've never carried my rod license with me since. I dare say you're now gong tell me you carry license with you everywhere as the 'responsible thing to do'. But most anglers don't, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

This is England after all. If a man says he's bought a license then I would rather take him at his word, and if he's misbehaving or being anti-social then I would rather call the police and have him arrested. I'm afraid in my book, paddling down the river in a canoe does not fall into that catagory, and I've a hunch that the majority of the public would agree with me

 

And so it will Andy, the 'demands' seem to change. I first heard of your problem with the barbel stocking on your local river, (something I'm against, by the way), and the way you were treated, (again something I didn't agree with). Now it seems that you not only want greater access, (something I agree with on certain rivers), but don't like the idea of being regulated. I'm not surprised that you are getting no cooperation, it looks a bit like a case of 'give them an inch, and they want a mile'.

It's good to hear that you agree with my stance over the barbel stocking on the Wensum and the attempts by the barbel fishermen to close down navigation on the river. The rub is that in spite of everything, they're still doing it. Angling seems unable to put its own house in order. In fact, I've got a magazine article here written by Hugh Miles 18 months after my little incident, in which he describes "shouting in incandescent rage" at a party of canoeists who where attempting to navigate the Wensum during the closed season.

[andy_youngs]

Andy,

 

Sadly, or gladly, depending on your side of the fence. We, in America, agree with OZ. (Unless said water empoundment begins and ends on your property - then it's yours.)

 

However, sadly, (IMO) we tax the use of public land, moving water and flat water, all three. (Remember, as above all water is "public".)

 

Comes down to a philosophical difference. One, what's good for the majority is good for the individual - - - or - - - - what good for the individual is good for the majority. Money talks while BS walks.

 

Since the beginning of time, as I've read history, the golden rule applies. "The guy with the gold makes the rules". (at least on public waterways)

 

I believe some should enjoy our vast natural resources more than others. The more money that can be "extorted" from a group or individual the more enjoyment they deserve. Free enterprise, one man one vote, at its best. No free lunch. Right now, our "biggie" is should "big oil" be allowed to drill on public land. I know that is NOT the subject of this thread. But, as sure as God made little green apples - now or later - it will happen.

 

Phone

 

Not sure I follow the logic there Phone. We're not talking about water empoundments, we're talking about free flowing rivers. And why on earth would the Govt want to stop oil drilling on public land? I can see why they might shuffle their feet and play hardball over the tax take, but just think of the conservation value in all those oil revenue dollars.

 

Unless of course you think that we should stop drilling for oil and go back to the stone age. Leave it to BP, they'll sort it out for you (that's the Old World coming to the rescue of the New)

Edited January 8, 2012 by andy_youngs

[Dick Dastardly]

So the moment an angler shouts "Oi you, you're not allowed to canoe through here" then he is committing the criminal offence of verbal assault. That means he can, and should be arrested. Most canoeists are becoming increasingly clued up over this.

 

I should not have to be pointing this out to anglers. The Angling Trust should be doing that.

 

I say again that a lot of anglers are rude and intolerant to other water users (no matter how considerate those other water users are being)

 

Even as an angler I find this "the river is ours" attitude from some fellow anglers very untasteful. Again the "up their own backsides" barbel anglers you encountered that day also made me feel ashamed of anglers BUT the above also fills me with the same contempt! Stuff like that ain't going to convert the "middle of the road" angler (the hardcore idiots are a lost cause any way) and even going to alienate guys like my self who do have a genuine interest in seeing us all get along.Any "clued up" canoeist that acted as such would be no better than the hardcore idiot anglers in mine and I should imagine many's eyes.

[andy_youngs]

I say again that a lot of anglers are rude and intolerant to other water users (no matter how considerate those other water users are being)

 

Even as an angler I find this "the river is ours" attitude from some fellow anglers very untasteful. Again the "up their own backsides" barbel anglers you encountered that day also made me feel ashamed of anglers BUT the above also fills me with the same contempt! Stuff like that ain't going to convert the "middle of the road" angler (the hardcore idiots are a lost cause any way) and even going to alienate guys like my self who do have a genuine interest in seeing us all get along.Any "clued up" canoeist that acted as such would be no better than the hardcore idiot anglers in mine and I should imagine many's eyes.

Oh please Budgie, the rules seem to be that if you are paddling down a river and you get challenged, then you hold up a video camera, and ask the person to state their name, and whether or not they are the riparian landowner. If they say yes, you reply "I don't believe you, I think you are actually an angry angler. Please go and get the deeds to your property so that you can prove it to me". By the time the 'landowner' has returned (assuming he is being genuine), then the canoeist is long gone.

 

Even I know this, and I've only been canoeing half a dozen times in my life. It goes back to a previous point that the current Angling Trust policy is unenforceable in practice.

 

I agree that these are distasteful practices, and I'm not condoning them. But I'm not gong to condemn them either. Apart from anything, they seem to work, and it's certainly no worse than what some anglers are doing.

 

I also wouldn't describe the hardcore angling idiots as a lost cause. I would describe them as a cancer, and that's where the surgery should begin.

Edited January 8, 2012 by andy_youngs

[Latimeria]

I remember fishing a tiny little trout stream in New Zealand about 20 years when some canoeists passed through.

 

So you don't object to all irresponsible introductions of species which are not native to an area?

 

I enquired later with some local anglers whether such disruption aggrivated them in any way, and was told in no uncertain terms that their forebears had left the shores of England precisely to get away from that sort of 'landowner bullsh$t'.

 

How fortunate it was that those islands we now call New Zealand were completely uninhabited when their forebears had arrived, bringing with them all manner of species from the homelands.

Except they weren't.

Very selective in your outrage, it seems.

[seafoods]

So you don't object to all irresponsible introductions of species which are not native to an area?

 

 

 

How fortunate it was that those islands we now call New Zealand were completely uninhabited when their forebears had arrived, bringing with them all manner of species from the homelands.

Except they weren't.

Very selective in your outrage, it seems.

 

Quite comical, in a strange sort of way - the 'species' they introduced (mostly Scots and Irish) didn't want to go there either, but I'll bet their descendants are glad they did.

Edited January 8, 2012 by seafoods