Discrimination

[andy_youngs]

that's patently obvious with your early morning alchohol fueled venom

A bit unnecessary Brian. It's untrue, and it doesn't help your cause. I suggest you concentrate more on the issues, and less on my timekeeping.

[cg74]

Not exactly,

 

I went on FM intending to tell the truth as I see it, anticipating that it might result in a quarrel, and then being prepared to see the argument through to its natural conclusion. If that means a banning order, then ok, I'll take it.

 

And the truth which I intended to tell is this :

 

1. Barbel are not native to either the Wensum or the Hampshire Avon. The only reason they are present in these rivers is due to a long history of artificial stockings.

 

2. Both rivers are Special Areas of Conservation, and barbel actively predate on all the endangered species for which these rivers recieved this conservation designation.

 

3. On both the Wensum and the Hampshire Avon, anglers (especially barbel fishermen) are widely percieved as trying to deny canoeists access to these rivers.

 

4. When anglers do this, and when the Angling Trust then backs them up, then there is a strong likliehood that it will be counter-productive and reflect badly on all anglers.

 

That is the central truth that I was trying to point out. Problem being that positions have become so entrenched over this matter, that when you try and place the issues in the public domain, then you run the risk of getting vilified. Which is pretty much what has happened.

 

Like you cg74, I'm getting a bit bored with all this. I'll post the results of my Freedom of Information request in due course. I have no idea what the reply will be, or what the public response to this reply will be. I guess we shall see.

 

Andy, with all due respect your version of "the truth as you see it," Isn't the actual "truth" but in reality is just your opinion.

 

In answer to your points raised:

1, As I've said before; evidence would suggest barbel were an indigenous species to the Wensum and it's only because of human intervention with their habitat that brought about their extinction. So are people (anglers) in the wrong for trying to right this wrong?

My personal view is no, but only if the habitat is improved and made more suitable.

 

The Hampshire Avon is a different story altogether: Its first official stocking was undertaken in 1896 (116yrs ago) but there is strong evidence to support an earlier legitimate (government sanctioned) in 1876 (136yrs ago) and that was that until the 1960's, when due to habitat degredation, more barbel were stocked. Now comes the point when your argument falls flat on its proverbial face; you use the term "native" and by EA definition, being a legitimate resident of an ecosystem/environment for 150 years or more, makes it 'native'........ Only 14 years left, best of luck to you; I think you're gonna need it........ How long did you say you'd been waiting for the info on stockings............

 

2, Ignoring the facts stated by me above; yes barbel will have an effect on species such as salmon and sea trout, through predation of their spawn and fry but crucially this effect will be no greater than experienced by fish that will have their numbers depleted by barbel being introduced, the opposite could even be argued:

What eats more fish spawn, a 10lb barbel or ten 1lb roach? And which is going to eat more fish fry, two 5lb chub or a 10lb barbel?

 

3, The usage of "perceived" ends that questions validity!

 

4, I've absolutely no desire whatsoever to discuss the Angling Trust.

 

 

The "central truth" of your quarrels are essentially based on flawed information, but good luck with your endeavours.

(perhaps change Avon to the Bristol one, it might prove to be a more fruitful proposition)

[Phone]

cq,

 

Andy is obviously not looking for respect (yours or anyone elses).

 

That's the "central truth".

 

Why you doing this?

 

Phone

[barry luxton]

Here ya go Andy, i thought i would post this up just to keep the topic alight, regards barry the agitator. Can you tell me if fireworks happend afterwards or did it end up a damp squibb. p.s. i do support you Andy, in particular where mr lloyd recons that canoes are dangerous. Wondering just who is far away from reality. Now be nice and you might just win some mates, like Brian for example, you don't know what your missing until it's gone, nothing wrong with our Bri, nice chap.

 

 

QUOTE ANGLING TRUST: The representative body for anglers in England, the Angling Trust, wrote to the Chief Executive of the British Canoe Union (BCU) today demanding that his organisation condemns a planned illegal trespass protest on Saturday 22 October 2011 on the Hampshire Avon. The Angling Trust has also asked for public confirmation that no BCU staff will be involved in the protest, and that the BCU will make it clear to participants that they will not be covered by public liability insurance while participating in an activity which is not recognised by the National Governing Body for Canoeing.

 

The illegal trespass event could damage the fragile ecology of the Hampshire Avon, which is currently suffering from low flows. Gravel beds used for spawning by fish, and beds of Ranunculus fluitans (a water weed which is a vital habitat for invertebrates) could be damaged by large numbers of canoes passing through shallow water. The large, garish craft will also disturb the peace of the river and destroy anglers' enjoyment of their sport by scaring fish away. An angling match for 30 anglers is planned on the day of the protest and this will be ruined by the illegal trespass. The Hampshire Avon is one of the most iconic rivers in the country for both coarse and game angling. The organisers are claiming in their e-mail promotion (see note 1) that the event is not a mass trespass, but merely an exercise of an ancient right of access. The law is clear: no such right exists (see note 2.)

 

Mark Lloyd, Chief Executive of the Angling Trust said: "This trespass is irresponsible and dangerous and could do physical damage to sensitive habitats in a river already suffering from over-abstraction and diffuse pollution. We urge the BCU to advise its members to stay away and to adopt a new position on canoe access that is less confrontational and works with angling clubs and riparian owners to secure new access - with sensible restrictions - for the country's canoeists. Any sniff of support for this illegal protest would be highly irresponsible from a National Governing Body. We have contacted the police and have asked them to take action to arrest anyone participating in aggravated trespass."

 

Stuart Wilson, the Riverkeeper employed by London Angling Association who have owned a stretch of the river since 1965, said: "Organising this event is completely unreasonable behaviour and will spoil the enjoyment of a group of anglers who pay a rod licence to fish and pay for a permit to fish at Britford. Their match has been organised for months and many will have travelled several hours to come and fish. They will be utterly disappointed if a group of canoeists who contribute nothing to the upkeep of the river come splashing through the river disturbing fish and other wildlife on an illegal process. They will spoil the fishing for the most of the rest of the morning."

 

Stuart Wilson has experienced an increase in illegal canoeing over the past 3 years which is affecting the fishing and the presence of wildlife such as water voles.

 

 

p.p.s the more i re-read the quote the more i have to laugh at it's pathetic content, like GARISH canoes for example, do the trust want them painted camo then, ho ho ho.

Edited April 17, 2012 by barry luxton

[andy_youngs]

Andy is obviously not looking for respect (yours or anyone elses).

Phone

Not quite true Phone. I am seeking respect from responsible anglers and canoeists. It's the irresponsible ones that I don't care about.

Edited April 18, 2012 by andy_youngs

[Sportsman]

Not quite true Phone. I am seeking respect from responsible anglers and canoeists. It's the irresponsible ones that I don't care about.

 

Andy

Respect is earned rather than sought.

In an argument between canoeists and angler who exactly would you expect the Angling Trust to support? (hint, there is a clue in the name)

 

You are not being discriminated against, you are being ignored (correctly IMO) as an irrelevance.

[andy_youngs]

Andy

Respect is earned rather than sought.

In an argument between canoeists and angler who exactly would you expect the Angling Trust to support? (hint, there is a clue in the name)

Well I'm an angler, and I expect the AT to represent me in a responsible manner. At the moment they are quite patently not doing that. I think they're being divisive and confrontational in a misguided attempt to mollify a militant minority. There's nothing wrong with seeking respect, and I totally agree that respect will not be forthcoming unless it has been earned.

 

To date the AT have done nothing to earn my respect.

 

You are not being discriminated against, you are being ignored (correctly IMO) as an irrelevance.

The reason this thread is entitled 'discrimination' is because a respected member of this forum wrote to me suggesting that I might have a legal case for discrimination after being banned from the FM forum. Following discussion, I've already concluded (and publicly acknowledged) that I do not think this assessment is correct.

 

So we've moved on from that, and we're now discussing the issues outlined in post #90. To date, the only detailed response I've had to this post is from cg74. I haven't responded to his post (yet) because I think it's fairly obvious that his comments are unsubstantiated. But I'd be glad to read any relevant comments which you would like to make. Just please make sure that any comments which you make are true, and that they can be substantiated. This is important because as you've probably gathered, this is a bit of a touchy subject.

Edited April 20, 2012 by andy_youngs

[cg74]

So we've moved on from that, and we're now discussing the issues outlined in post #90. To date, the only detailed response I've had to this post is from cg74. I haven't responded to his post (yet) because I think it's fairly obvious that his comments are unsubstantiated. But I'd be glad to read any relevant comments which you would like to make. Just please make sure that any comments which you make are true, and that they can be substantiated. This is important because as you've probably gathered, this is a bit of a touchy subject.

 

Andy, instead of faffing around, if I'm in the wrong, then please feel free to tell all how and why I'm in the wrong but do so complete with evicence to support your claims otherwise, its pointless going down that route.

 

As for lines like this: "I haven't responded to his post (yet) because I think it's fairly obvious that his comments are unsubstantiated."

Nice usage of innuendo and rhetoric there................

 

 

 

 

.... Sorry that should have been; a nice attempt at using innuendo and rhetoric, sadly it shows a desperate man trying his damnedest to gain some credence.

 

 

 

Oh yeah, I preferred your pre-edit post, more you I thought....!

Edited April 20, 2012 by cg74

[andy_youngs]

Andy, with all due respect your version of "the truth as you see it," Isn't the actual "truth" but in reality is just your opinion.

 

In answer to your points raised:

1, As I've said before; evidence would suggest barbel were an indigenous species to the Wensum and it's only because of human intervention with their habitat that brought about their extinction. So are people (anglers) in the wrong for trying to right this wrong?

My personal view is no, but only if the habitat is improved and made more suitable.

Nonsense. The evidence suggests that at some point in the last 428,000 years the Wensum once flowed into the Rhine. But the evidence also suggests that 18,000 years ago there was a permenant land bridge between England and mainland Europe, and that sea levels were 120 metres lower than they are today. 12,000 years ago the land bridge disappeared and sea levels rose dramatically. See :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland

 

You're cherrypicking the science to try and justify your argument. I've grown up on the Wensum and seen first hand how the barbel fishermen have manipulated the truth and the law to suit their own ends, and to hell with the environmental consequences. There's only 2 things they care about : stuffing the river with as many artificial barbel introductions as possible, and keeping canoeists off the river.

 

In order for barbel to survive in the broads catchment then they would have to survive in the main river, the Yare, and run up tributaries such as the Wensum to spawn. But they can't. The Yare is too slow flowing and muddy for them to survive, and in any event, migration up the Wensum is blocked with manmade obstructions. So what we end up with is a few isolated populations of artificially stocked barbel which are unable to reproduce, and a bunch of militant barbel fishermen who are hell bent on closing down public access to the river.

 

The Hampshire Avon is a different story altogether: Its first official stocking was undertaken in 1896 (116yrs ago) but there is strong evidence to support an earlier legitimate (government sanctioned) in 1876 (136yrs ago) and that was that until the 1960's, when due to habitat degredation, more barbel were stocked. Now comes the point when your argument falls flat on its proverbial face; you use the term "native" and by EA definition, being a legitimate resident of an ecosystem/environment for 150 years or more, makes it 'native'........ Only 14 years left, best of luck to you; I think you're gonna need it........ How long did you say you'd been waiting for the info on stockings............

How can there have been a Govt sanctioned introduction 1876, when prior to the 1960's barbel translocations were commonplace without Government restrictions?

 

And why do you make no reference to 1500 barbel which a previous poster has confirmed went into the river in 2000?

 

You provide NO substantiation for any of these claims, which conflict with links that I have previously posted by the owner of the Royalty Fishery. Again, you're cherry picking and basing your arguments on junk science. And if you are seriously suggesting that simply because a river has been artificially stocked with barbel for 150 years then the fish should be considered native, then you are deluding yourself. That is simply an argument for extending the 150 year rule to 200 years.

 

Barbel are not native to the Hampshire Avon or any of the Westerly rivers in England, and their introduction into these rivers has coincided with a progressive decline in salmon stocks.

 

The EA get 20 days to answer a Freedom of Information request, and I will get to the truth of this matter.

 

2, Ignoring the facts stated by me above; yes barbel will have an effect on species such as salmon and sea trout, through predation of their spawn and fry but crucially this effect will be no greater than experienced by fish that will have their numbers depleted by barbel being introduced, the opposite could even be argued:

What eats more fish spawn, a 10lb barbel or ten 1lb roach? And which is going to eat more fish fry, two 5lb chub or a 10lb barbel?

The point is that indigenous roach stocks are supposed to be in the river, barbel aren't. And a 10lb barbel is going to eat more salmon spawn than ten 1lb roach. And I very much doubt if your two 5lb chub are indigenous to the river either.

 

3, The usage of "perceived" ends that questions validity!

Why? I perceive that to be the case based on my first hand experience.

 

4, I've absolutely no desire whatsoever to discuss the Angling Trust.

I don't blame you. If I was in your position I wouldn't want to drag them into this either.

 

I on the other hand would like to include them in this debate. Because it's relevant their job, and they're the ones that were lied to by the Environment Agency in the meeting in October last year

 

The "central truth" of your quarrels are essentially based on flawed information, but good luck with your endeavours.

(perhaps change Avon to the Bristol one, it might prove to be a more fruitful proposition)

Thanks for wishing me luck, but I doubt if the Bristol Avon would be any more fruitful than the Hampshire Avon. Barbel are not native to that river either (see Wheeler and Jordan again). But they're a lot better suited to the Bristol Avon than they are the Hampshire one.

Edited April 24, 2012 by andy_youngs

[andy_youngs]

Andy, instead of faffing around, if I'm in the wrong, then please feel free to tell all how and why I'm in the wrong but do so complete with evicence to support your claims otherwise, its pointless going down that route.

 

As for lines like this: "I haven't responded to his post (yet) because I think it's fairly obvious that his comments are unsubstantiated."

Nice usage of innuendo and rhetoric there................

 

.... Sorry that should have been; a nice attempt at using innuendo and rhetoric, sadly it shows a desperate man trying his damnedest to gain some credence.

 

Oh yeah, I preferred your pre-edit post, more you I thought....!

You mean the bit where I alleged your claims were spurious? I edited the spurious word out in retrospect because I didn't want to be perceived as being inflammitory. But since you bring it up, it is true. I'm not the one that's failing to substantiate my position, you are.

Edited April 24, 2012 by andy_youngs