Lets put it in a box and leave it behind

[Guest redfin2]

I'm not wasting my time looking into that. I suspect that roach were always present in the river and that any roach stocking that has taken place was to replenish a population which had been depleted through unnatural human intervention.

 

Why dont you answer a perfectly straight, direct question first, about how many barbel have been artificially stocked into the Hampshire Avon? For goodness sake, I'm only asking for an honest answer a straight question. You talk about roach stocks in the Avon, which Avon? there a loads of them.

 

The 'official' line on Barbel re stocking is vague, however it seems pretty much clear that the last stocking of Barbel in the Hampshire Avon was some time ago in the '60's

However there has been an active effort to the the Avon back to where it was as far as Roach are concerned.

 

Yes I fish for Barbel more than any other species at the moment, and I do come in contact with Kyaks and canoes on a regular basis on my local Warks Avon, however apart from a couple of incidents where the Kyaker went out of his way to ruin the anglers enjoyment I have found them to be considerate.

 

However the Wye is a different matter, the problem is the day trippers who have no regard for others and are a nightmare, but this is well known and an effort to make the operators more culpable is a yearly feature, but sadly put a any Brit in a situation like that and they behave like idiots. I no longer enjoy fishing the Wye below Ross, and if I want to fish the River I am forced to pay upwards of £20 a day to escape these pests. To me that is a real impact on my rights, and pocket.

 

You are doing yourself no favours in your stance on here, you come over as divisive, and the very fact that there is a Kyak Forum on AN should tell you how tolerant AN is of everyone.

 

If you want a debate why don't you put this up on BFW?

 

Good Luck!!

[Anderoo]

I'm not wasting my time looking into that. I suspect that roach were always present in the river and that any roach stocking that has taken place was to replenish a population which had been depleted through unnatural human intervention.

 

Why dont you answer a perfectly straight, direct question first, about how many barbel have been artificially stocked into the Hampshire Avon? For goodness sake, I'm only asking for an honest answer a straight question. You talk about roach stocks in the Avon, which Avon? there a loads of them.

 

I bet you'd waste your time trying to to find a way to pull it into your (very hard to follow) argument if it was roach anglers and not barbel anglers who you keep running into! (I was talking about the Hampshire Avon BTW.)

 

How many barbel have been artificially stocked into the Hampshire Avon? I have no idea and I haven't the slightest bit of curiosity to find out. Try the EA, they might know. Random bods on a fishing forum are very unlikely to know stuff like that. I don't beileve it's the big cover-up you seem to think it is.

 

You might get more support if you weren't so combative and aggressive, but either way as a disinterested outsider it doesn't look to me like you have much support for your crusade.

 

Can you provide an honest answer to this straight question please, as I and I think a number of others here are quite confused - what's the connection between the barbel stocking history of the Hampshire Avon and the Wensum and navigation rights for canoes?

[Kappa]

Andy Youngs,

 

I have met a number of people over the years that have got annoyed with something. Maybe its the neighbours hedges or the councils plan to build more houses or a new law etc etc.

 

Now whilst many people get cross and even shout a bit, some let the issue consume them. Whilst the others have forgotten or gotten on with something else, these people get more and more worked up until every waking moment is spent being cross about something, that in the grand scheme or things, just doesn't really matter. Inevitably they get more and more angry and more and more marginalised as their friends and family get fed up hearing them bleet on and on about some minor injustice, which then just fuels the fire.

 

The bizarre thing in this case, is most people on here just don't give two hoots about canoes or barbel stockings but you keep banging that drum. If you really really want to, go and camp outside parliament, sell your house and take everyone to court, but when you have finished (even if you win) will it really have been worth the bother?

 

Or alternatively if you really just want a fight (which I suspect you do) why not go to a barbel society meeting or just into town on a Saturday night I'm sure many would happily oblige. I too have no idea what you are actually trying to achieve in this bizarre thread.

 

Rich

[chesters1]

Err .. i give up; we have explained the law to you. You don't like it- you are entitled not to like it of course but sadly you cannot cherrypick the laws you like and ignore the ones you don't. Money is utterly irrelevant to the issue. And how many more times - trespass not an offence- therefore not for the police to enforce !

 

you know nothing of the law how its made and how bad laws get changed.Nor of your angling history

 

there good laws and bad laws (and yes the masses do have a choice in which is which),people in power historically made laws to help them and put everyone in their place firmly under it ,now the powerful could be land owners ,the church ,industry or the government ,get it or am i going to fast for you?

 

now you can call it breaking a law or "testing " a law ,in the main you obey the historic laws of the land (or i should say the majority do) but statute law is different a fair bit is brought in for something more than looking after the masses

 

 

mass disobedience is a great way of "testing" laws,without mass disobediance in the 50's and 60's there would be no canals for you to fish ,inland waterways deliberately destroyed canals so they didnt have to maintain them (deliberately getting them the title of unnavigable helped a lot and saved millions in maintenance) mass law breaking (mostly against inland waterways byelaws ) got great attention from the media and more voices joined in until the laws were changed people could use boats etc and the canals were saved ! still herenot getting bored yet?

 

now rivers ,exactly the same if laws were not broken (challenged) historically there would be few that actually contain fish never mind have angling on them and would be stinking polluted bogs,groups were formed (the ACA and others) who challenged the powerful and got things changed ,no doubt a bit of law breaking as well

 

Now strangely enough it was the power of the angling media and organisations who stopped rivers becoming technically covered by the right to roam rules ,and those rules were put i force by walkers who "challenged" (broke the laws in mass protests) the existing laws (again brought in by the powerful long ago)

 

so you see law breaking in some cases is justified ,as i said its the individual choice that he does what he wants taking into consideration the consequence's of his actions.

 

if laws worked then they would be considered good and everyone would heed them ,no need for police ,no need for me ,lifes not that easy though the country is controlled by lots of bad laws the good want changing and lots of good laws the bad people ignore.

 

laws are out there to be challenged ,if the canoeists get a greater voice then they will get what they want ,whatever anglers think.

 

its far harder today the rich and powerful want the law to themselves so legal aid has been cleverly taken away from most people in challenging laws ,mass groups are the only option today and our old friend "challenging" the laws by other means

 

i havnt by the way mentioned "fish" i'm speaking of the fairness in having rivers for all not just greedy anglers who point fingers at others

Edited April 11, 2012 by chesters1

[Nicepix]

I had a problem on the Dearne where quad bikers cut out a track along the river bank. They chopped down mature trees and cut fences to make their tracks and in doing so spoiled a few bird nesting sites and a couple of good barbel swims. A few rake heads were purchased from the tat shop and strategically placed under water in areas where the quads ran up river. Strangely enough after a few weeks they stopped coming down to the Dearne and nature is reclaiming the track.

 

I mentioned a similar tactic a couple of years ago when Andy Y or someone similar began a crusade to get anglers to accept canoes. All of a sudden those canoeists who advocated breaking navigation laws and committing trespass were aghast that someone might spike the rapids and ruin a few play boats. And of course there is always the unattended cars and vans sporting kayak racks or trailers parked near to river access points. Very vulnerable to vandals they are..........................

 

[chesters1]

you have the right to do anything you believe ,but you may face the consequences ,my point exactly about canoeists .

trouble is though your mixing metaphor's a "bank" belongs to someone and it can be damaged and therefore is covered by trespass laws ,its strange the notion you can willfully damage someone elses property whilst moan about them damaging someone elses ,two laws or just like me and my theoretical canoe trip simply bending or challenging them?

Edited April 11, 2012 by chesters1

[Nicepix]

you have the right to do anything you believe ,but you may face the consequences ,my point exactly about canoeists .

trouble is though your mixing metaphor's a "bank" belongs to someone and it can be damaged and therefore is covered by trespass laws ,its strange the notion you can willfully damage someone elses property whilst moan about them damaging someone elses ,two laws or just like me and my theoretical canoe trip simply bending or challenging them?

 

 

The trouble is that your points about canoeists changes with every post you make and every subsequent edit of those posts. You do not understand the laws of trespass or navigation yet you still think you have a point. That is the problem. It is pointless continuing this discussion with you except to say and to contradict one of your many misapprehensions; ignorance of the law is no defence in the UK. Now, like others before me have said; as far as you are concerned; "I'm out!"

[chesters1]

use the Stratford-upon-Avon Canal? saved by a canoe!

i do know about trespass obviously you do not its covered by 3 sections which one covers a river?

 

Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels and trespass to land !

 

if the land owner does not own the river then there's no trespass ,a riparian owner only has fishing and booming rights nothing more ,without law breaking there would be few if any navigable waters at all ,if the status of canals can be changed from unnavigable to navigable in time the rest of the "unnavigable" waters can be as well

 

lets discuss your escapades with rakes ,could be interpreted as criminal damage ,or stopping the natural passage of fish if you want to get really technical

 

you maybe out but i have no ignorance of the law to change laws you need to know them very well ,i never mentioned in any post the suggestion people who challenged laws were ignorent of them ,its pretty hard to deliberately challenge something you dont know exists.

before you go off and sulk i would go back and delete anything about your actual or hints for committing criminal damage ,its a lot more serious than someone paddling down a river bending a few branches to get through ;) look up Incitement its been around a long time its a good law ,never heard of it shucks thats no excuse.

for someone who thinks he knows the law your pretty naive

Edited April 11, 2012 by chesters1

[grayson]

you know nothing of the law how its made and how bad laws get changed.Nor of your angling history

 

there good laws and bad laws (and yes the masses do have a choice in which is which),people in power historically made laws to help them and put everyone in their place firmly under it ,now the powerful could be land owners ,the church ,industry or the government ,get it or am i going to fast for you?

 

now you can call it breaking a law or "testing " a law ,in the main you obey the historic laws of the land (or i should say the majority do) but statute law is different a fair bit is brought in for something more than looking after the masses

 

 

mass disobedience is a great way of "testing" laws,without mass disobediance in the 50's and 60's there would be no canals for you to fish ,inland waterways deliberately destroyed canals so they didnt have to maintain them (deliberately getting them the title of unnavigable helped a lot and saved millions in maintenance) mass law breaking (mostly against inland waterways byelaws ) got great attention from the media and more voices joined in until the laws were changed people could use boats etc and the canals were saved ! still herenot getting bored yet?

 

now rivers ,exactly the same if laws were not broken (challenged) historically there would be few that actually contain fish never mind have angling on them and would be stinking polluted bogs,groups were formed (the ACA and others) who challenged the powerful and got things changed ,no doubt a bit of law breaking as well

 

Now strangely enough it was the power of the angling media and organisations who stopped rivers becoming technically covered by the right to roam rules ,and those rules were put i force by walkers who "challenged" (broke the laws in mass protests) the existing laws (again brought in by the powerful long ago)

 

so you see law breaking in some cases is justified ,as i said its the individual choice that he does what he wants taking into consideration the consequence's of his actions.

 

if laws worked then they would be considered good and everyone would heed them ,no need for police ,no need for me ,lifes not that easy though the country is controlled by lots of bad laws the good want changing and lots of good laws the bad people ignore.

 

laws are out there to be challenged ,if the canoeists get a greater voice then they will get what they want ,whatever anglers think.

 

its far harder today the rich and powerful want the law to themselves so legal aid has been cleverly taken away from most people in challenging laws ,mass groups are the only option today and our old friend "challenging" the laws by other means

 

i havnt by the way mentioned "fish" i'm speaking of the fairness in having rivers for all not just greedy anglers who point fingers at others

 

Final word from me- I practised law for almost 40 years and have fished for 50 plus. I have also read the literature of our sport - and have done so since I was a kid in the 60s. You may not like what I say but please do not accuse me of ignorance. Good luck with your crusading - you might get some more suppport if you tried to make at least a bit of sense....

[ayjay]

The 'official' line on Barbel re stocking is vague, however it seems pretty much clear that the last stocking of Barbel in the Hampshire Avon was some time ago in the '60's

 

There has been at least one official stocking since then, it was probably late 90s or early 00s, a total of about 1500 fingerlings were stocked in the lower Avon in three phases, mostly at Winkton/Sopley.

 

These facts and figures are all from my crap memory and are subject to error but the basics are correct.

 

Someone at C.A.C. will have the exact details if anyone wants to follow it up for accuracy.

 

English Nature has since blocked any further stocking on the grounds that Barbel are not an indigenous species in the H.Avon.