choo choo, Fairbrass edits his comments!

[Steve Walker]

Would I seek to impose what I prefer (or what is good for my business) on as many people as possible? No, I don't think so. I suppose I might buy a few places to preserve them as they are, if they were under threat. Is that the same? Dunno, I suppose it is, in the same sense that what the National Trust does to the countryside is the same as what Barratt or Wimpey does to it.

[gozzer]

gozzer,

 

You're going to have to stop making assumptions about """"even if that thing is bad for angling as a whole"""". By what right or benefit do you get to decide?

 

Phone

 

I could start by asking what right you have to tell me what I should, or should not, do.

 

 

I don't assume any personal 'right' Phone. I just use logic, experience, and facts to make a decision, and then act on that. There are no thoughts of financial gain, in my motives, unlike many others, just a thought for the future of angling, and the environment, of this country.

The project in question is based on only one section of angling, that's the one that has made Mr Fairbrass a wealthy man, and able to attempt this project. By singling out the alleged 'otter problem', and engaging the help of the PAG, he is playing on the fears, (unproven), of the carp anglers. You only have to scan a few carp only forums to see what I mean. It seems that you believe, as Stephen appears to, that to do anything, no matter how damaging it might be, is better than not doing anything. Also the fact that he's doing this as an 'entrepreneur', just looking to expand his business seems to be a valid excuse to some, not in my mind it doesn't, the 'success at all costs' ideal is something I find abhorrent. I know this is against the current political opinion, but there you go.

Angling in the UK has changed a lot in the last 30yrs, I'm not against change per say, but not all change is good change, not just in my opinion, but for angling and the environment in general. For that change to be made almost exclusively for financial reasons, regardless of cost in other areas, doesn't sit right with me. There are enough waters in the UK to accommodate all disciplines, all that I want is that choice to be equally available to all, (subject to local conditions), and to be in tune with the natural flora and fauna.

 

John.

[Dales]

Would I seek to impose what I prefer (or what is good for my business) on as many people as possible? No, I don't think so. I suppose I might buy a few places to preserve them as they are, if they were under threat. Is that the same? Dunno, I suppose it is, in the same sense that what the National Trust does to the countryside is the same as what Barratt or Wimpey does to it.

 

Steve, your a well principled chap and better then most. I do like your comparison to the National Trust and Barratt and Wimpey. Many would argue that what the National Trust does is not always the best choice and that their views are often rather blinkered.

 

You could also take a point of view that the likes of Wimpey are doing what the majority of people want i.e build more houses. Does the benefit of the many outway the views of the few. I don't really know. Old Danny is giving the many what they want.

 

What is best for fishing is never going to be best for the environment.

[Worms]

Angling in the UK has changed a lot in the last 30yrs

 

It certainly has. The "style" of fishing has changed dramatically with the massive increase in stocked fisheries and the decline in numbers of people angling "natural" waters.

 

Ironically, the last thirty years has seen a significant rise in fish eating predators...I've spent quite a while trying to find any figures for stocked fishery increases since the 80s but have had no luck...I'll bet a pound that predator number increase has followed stocked fishery increase very closely though!

 

The call now is to have more stocked fisheries and manage (kill...PAG) the predators. It makes no sense, it is a money making business...and a big one. Unfortunately it is having an effect on our natural ecosystems.

[Dales]

and to be in tune with the natural flora and fauna.

 

I like that idea but the reality is once man gets involved it will not be in the best interest of the enviroment, oddly those fish would rather not get caught at all. There are very few waters run with a major consideration to what is best for the local ecosystem and environment. The best thing anglers can do for the enviroment is not go fishing.

 

As far as I know Fairbrass has not ruined any waters yet, all that lack of choice that he is often blamed for has been done by others. He may well be a member of a few clubs but it was not him voting to dump a tonne of F1's and skimmers in to hundreds of club waters up and down the country trashing loads of mixed fisheries. Angling managed to get its self where we are now, long before Fairbrass came up with his scheme.

 

We are where we are because of what lots of people in angling wanted.

[Dick Dastardly]

Still playing the "otter card" though I see. Shame he has dropped the nuscence (im never going to be able to spell this word!) fish as it showed the true colours. Fishery managers are getting very nervous about this and none carpers on "fallow waters" starting to worry as well. Like I initially said (first thread) Mr F has the ability to give such a project a very realistic chance of succeeding. I wish he was just a numpty but clearly hes not

[Worms]

We are where we are because of what lots of people in angling wanted.

 

Or, what lots of people started angling for....the easy chance to catch lots of big fish without having to put in much effort!

[Steve Walker]

What is best for fishing is never going to be best for the environment.

That depends on tastes, Stephen - I would argue that what is best for the environment is best for fishing, though it might not be best for catching.

[Dales]

That depends on tastes, Stephen - I would argue that what is best for the environment is best for fishing, though it might not be best for catching.

 

And I so want that to be true but many and I name and shame myself here would want to mold things to what is good for me. I would never want to do what Fairbrass is doing but I would and do want stuff that is good for me but not the environment.

 

Given the choice to bring back weed killer, I would want it back straight away. I would gladly use it, is that good for the environment? It's certainly good for fishing.

[Dick Dastardly]

Take a look at this U turn then on none other than our own AN Face book page!-

 

https://www.facebook.com/AnglersNet/posts/10152929122441758?notif_t=notify_me