Fish theft, again.

[Bob Bradford]

I was not supplied with FACTS Budgie.

Edited January 29, 2006 by Bob Bradford

[Bob Bradford]

For the record .

Edited January 29, 2006 by Bob Bradford

[chesters1]

another thought could it be the EA themselves i know for a fact our little river is denuded (and i use that term with thought) often to supply fish to waters losing theirs ,they electrofish the entire stretch even the rip owners dont know when they are coming they just turn up and empty it ,only the trout are released back as far as i saw and maybe only because i was watching.

our next door neighbour at our old house challenged them but was advised the EA could and can do pretty much anything they like in rivers etc

Edited January 26, 2006 by chesters1

[Bob Bradford]

No Chester, I have already asked that question, and the EA have not been netting that area, but thank you anyway.

[Steve Burke]

Brand name? how many deadbait suppliers are there in the UK Chester?

 

It is a constant source of amazement to me that people refuse to accept what is going on , I am not alone in my views, how is it I, and many ,many other Broadsmen, anglers that have seen and done it all, share the same thoughts? are we all in error? remember ,we have eyes and ears and live here.

 

Fish are being illegally netted and stolen from the Broads area and the authority's are doing very little about it, why won't anyone listen?

 

Why are people prepared to believe anything else, other than what we are saying?

 

I have heard all the excuses , but have never been supplied with one shred of proof,

 

I can prove that unmarked deadbaits are sold locally at a very low uneconomic price, and I can prove clear evidence of the carnage left by fish thieves.

 

I repeat, fish are being illegally removed from our inland waterways, and it has to stop, remember there is a whole ecological system at risk here, not just thousands of fish.

 

Bob, you may be right. As I'm not local I'm simply not qualified to judge.

 

However, contrary to what you state, you can't prove a single thing. In fact, to quote your own words, you haven't supplied "one shred of proof".

 

In other words you have a theory, but no evidence to back it up. Instead of trying to convince people at this stage, I'd respectfully suggest you spend more time and energy getting some evidence. If you do find some then you'll be taken more seriously.

 

Personally, I'd be more surprised if some fish aren't being illegally netted! However, I suspect that most of these are likely to be sold alive. A few of them may well be sold as pike baits. But I doubt that are that many. If there were, the price would have fallen much lower than it is now - simple supply and demand.

[chesters1]

would they tell you ,after all denuding a good fishing area to supply another could raise a few angry complaints from locals fishing the spot in question ,were talking about a government department arn't we

if they restock several miles of a oxygen depleted or polluted river they need pretty much the same amoungnt of fish that was lost (to keep it viable) there not going to pay for them so they will remove them from somewhere else.

perhaps (purely conjecture with no proof at all) that the EA supply fish for money to "persons" after all even they need to balance the books ,do the EA sell fish????

Edited January 26, 2006 by chesters1

[Bob Bradford]

Steve, I respectfully refer you to my second from last post.

[Bob Bradford]

Would they tell me Chester? I think so! it would make their life a whole lot easier, don't you think?

Some of you may be interested to know I received a letter yesterday inviting me to participate in an on-line questionnaire, I can only assume they contacted me for my input because I am very liberal with my views to them! anyway here is the link, please feel free to participate, but remember you are representing anglers/angling so refrain from insults and profanity's please! www.tminccs.com/b2c/EnvironmentAgency

Edited January 26, 2006 by Bob Bradford

[Steve Burke]

Steve, I respectfully refer you to my second from last post.

 

Seen it now. I was composing my reply when you posted it.

 

However, to be fair the EA don't have the resources to investigate every claim that's put to them. They'd need more evidence first. Otherwise they'd be accused of wasting our licence money......

Edited January 26, 2006 by Steve Burke

[chesters1]

Would they tell me Chester? I think so! it would make their life a whole lot easier, don't you think?

Some of you may be interested to know I received a letter yesterday inviting me to participate in an on-line questionnaire, I can only assume they contacted me for my input because I am very liberal with my views to them! anyway here is the link, please feel free to participate, but remember you are representing anglers/angling so refrain from insults and profanity's please! www.tminccs.com/b2c/EnvironmentAgency

 

your probably right but you may have more "clout" than i in angling circles ,they refused to answer the questions my old neighbour brought up regarding the course fish in "his" section of river and refused to answer why the stretch his bit was on was now "unnavigable"(despite being used for boating for 3 generations of his family and the village church hiring canoo's for a small sum since the thirties) ,the reasons revealed to the village council was that weils disease was "prevelent" upstream but refused to supply the evidence of it or even the the names of people that tested the water that proved their claim .strangly the EA use their own craft in this "unnavigable" bit of river despite threatning letters to my old neighbour talking of court action if he used his punt

the village council then jumped on the "evidence" and fenced the entire river (what used to be free fishing) "for our safety" i emailed the local MP who restated this "evidence" and referred me back to the EA

(amusing bit)

another higher standing member of the village who owned a couple of miles of bank upset at not being able to use his boat informed the local paper he was going to burn his boat as a protest at him losing his lifelong pleasure (he's in his 80's now) they(the paper) made an appointment for ten oclock for the burning ,i could see the action from our back garden ,a car came up the track ,he started the fire (making a good blaze for the photo) the car turned round and went away and the press turned up ten minutes after it went out not a line in the paper ,he was very upset when we met him later

Edited January 26, 2006 by chesters1