Jump to content
Bob Bradford

What Angling Times wrote...

Recommended Posts

NOW YOUR HAVING A GO AT INCOMERS FROM LONDON WHEN WILL THIS PERSECUTION END.

:1a::1a::1a::bangin::bleh:

 

 

I suppose it will all stop when the beggers stop moving out :rolleyes: !!!!!

 

Just a tad off topic, but not all together. I have asked one or two ex London folk why they have moved into the country. The answer being to get away from all those ###### foreigners, or words to that effect. What makes a man a foreigner?

 

There are plenty of jokes and comments about country folk who visit or even move into cities. A well known AN poster once made the comment that us country inbreds always go 'ooohhh-ahhhh' when an aircraft goes overhead!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll set them up,you knock em over Peter! (Inbred)

Edited by Bob Bradford

I am a match angler .....not an anti-Christ!!!]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry Gozzer, I am having trouble seeing your point, You have already stated that you feel it is OK for some-one,any-one, to remove a mature fish for the pot from our Natural waters, you spoke as if you had witnessed such a thing yourself, we both know it goes on and indeed is perfectly legal....at present! what Keith is advocating and I endorse ,is to stop this practice, bring in laws to make it illegal for ANYONE to remove the vital breeding stock from natural waters without prior consent from the relevant authority's, I do hope that has cleared that up! now you may well feel differently, and that is fine! but remember this Gozzer, man is not the only drain on a diminishing resource, do we really need to catch and kill coarse fish nowadays for food? are there no supermarkets around your way?

 

Now I see what your getting at Bob, you don't think it's right to take any coarse fish from a water.

 

I'll agree to differ with you on that one. If I do take the odd jack or what ever, it is with the relevant authorities permission, it is on my license or yearbook or day ticket, for the water I'm fishing.

 

The way this has been portrayed, (thousands of fish)had lead me to believe that this went on on a commercial scale. If we are talking about these numbers from thousands of waters across the UK, then it's hardly going to cause a mass decline in overall fish numbers.

 

As for the need to take a fish for food, this is how angling started, we don't need to catch fish at all, but we do.

Edited by gozzer

Angling is more than just catching fish, if it wasn't it would just be called 'catching'......... John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One last try, Anglers are being asked to stop the perfectly legal practice of taking large,breeding stock fish for the table, Keith is trying to get the law changed,the so called governing body's are worse than useless, Keith is calling for all anglers (based on concerned anglers) to support a small, legal strike ie; delaying buying your fishing licence for a fortnight, this of course means you cannot go fishing (that would be illegal) but it will (hopefully) show solidarity among anglers, it will be saying that it is no longer acceptable practice to further diminish vital fish stocks.

 

Remember this , when a large breeding fish is killed and taken it does not end there, We already have all the natural predators taking their share, we have in our rivers impotent males unable to fertilise the females eggs and of course you may be taking the only fertile male in the vicinity, can you tell by looking? if it is a female ,how many future offspring are you denying the fishery with your selfish attitude?

 

Is it really such a hardship to refuse your right to take breeding stock fish?

 

Will you die of hunger?

 

Why cannot anglers take a pro-active stance on this issue? no-one else will!

 

For the record Keith always knew he was "flogging a dead horse" and is not surprised at all by the lack of understanding, anglers by and large are an insular lot and this has only proved him right yet again, give yourselves a good pat on the back.


I am a match angler .....not an anti-Christ!!!]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced that the breeding stock argument holds much water, although I'm speculating here and if anybody has research evidence I'll happily reconsider.

 

I personally suspect that in most mature fisheries the number of eggs produced is so very far in excess of the number of fish that the water is capable of carrying that you would have to remove a very significant proportion of the larger fish before you got any reduction in the number of young fish being recruited to the fishery. In some species (principally perch and pike) the larger fish cause such severe depredation of the young that removing larger fish can result in an increase in recruitment. This is the well-known paradox whereby removing large pike causes a population explosion of jacks.

 

Further, I think the "saving fish for future generations" argument is very clearly flawed because provided that fish stocks are not fished to extinction (or to the point of a serious genetic bottleneck) the population will recover. There are highly productive fisheries which less than fifty years ago were too polluted to sustain any fish life at all.

 

Where removing large fish is a problem is in that it immediately denies sport to current users of the fishery. A large specimen of a slow growing species may take years to replace, although I would be interested to know what the effect of culling large fish is on the growth rates of medium sized fish. We must bear in mind that in a stable population large fish are dying and being replaced all of the time.

 

I think there has to be a question of how trout fisheries are sustainably managed with the expectation that some fish will be taken for the table; I'm not talking about put-and-take triploid rainbows in concrete bowls, I mean real self-sustaining brown trout fisheries. Clearly it is not impossible to manage a fishery under that regime, and it raises the question of whether this proposed legislation would make it illegal to take a trout for the table. If not, why then a perch?

 

Bottom line is, I don't think we need new laws. We may need the existing laws to be better enforced if there actually is a real problem to be addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anglers by and large are an insular lot and this has only proved him right yet again, give yourselves a good pat on the back.

 

Can't be bothered...


And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One last try

 

Hopefully! :angry:


Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One last try, Anglers are being asked to stop the perfectly legal practice of taking large,breeding stock fish for the table, Keith is trying to get the law changed,the so called governing body's are worse than useless, Keith is calling for all anglers (based on concerned anglers) to support a small, legal strike ie; delaying buying your fishing licence for a fortnight, this of course means you cannot go fishing (that would be illegal) but it will (hopefully) show solidarity among anglers, it will be saying that it is no longer acceptable practice to further diminish vital fish stocks.

 

Remember this , when a large breeding fish is killed and taken it does not end there, We already have all the natural predators taking their share, we have in our rivers impotent males unable to fertilise the females eggs and of course you may be taking the only fertile male in the vicinity, can you tell by looking? if it is a female ,how many future offspring are you denying the fishery with your selfish attitude?

 

 

Is it really such a hardship to refuse your right to take breeding stock fish?

 

Will you die of hunger?

 

Why cannot anglers take a pro-active stance on this issue? no-one else will!

 

For the record Keith always knew he was "flogging a dead horse" and is not surprised at all by the lack of understanding, anglers by and large are an insular lot and this has only proved him right yet again, give yourselves a good pat on the back.

 

 

 

Bob, I believe you are genuinely concerned about this perceived problem.

 

If it was as bad as the 'dramatic' statements used, then I could maybe just about see your point.

Because I have yet to see any factual proof, of massive fish losses due to anglers taking them, then I feel any protest should be aimed at what goes into the water than out of it.

 

The number of fry produced that don't make it past their first months, because the rivers have been staightened, and don't provide slacks for them to shelter in.

 

The over-stocked fisheries that help any disease spread, and without help could not support the fish they hold. These are just to make money and encourage 'chuck and chance' anglers, who are after 'easy' fishing.

 

The indiscriminate introduction of alien species, just for the,benefit of some anglers.

 

Water abstaction from rivers that can ill afford it.

 

The cans of crap that get dumped into feeder streams, releasing toxic material.

 

The run-off from farms using fertiliser, that cause algae blooms that smother river beds.

 

These are a few of the things that worry me, not a few fish taken by legal anglers.

 

If Mr Arthur knew he was "flogging a dead horse" then maybe he should have picked a "live" one, but the use of "sensational" statements, and dismissing anyone who holds a different veiw as "insular" is not the way to win, or even conduct a debate.

 

I am sorry if it seems that I am dragging this out, but I am just trying to be "pro-active".

Edited by gozzer

Angling is more than just catching fish, if it wasn't it would just be called 'catching'......... John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will have your proof Gozzer... in about 10 years time mate! I happen to believe prevention is better than cure, but have it your way, lets wait until there are no fish to be caught for recreational or food purposes, think that is far fetched? there are areas of canal in and around London that used to hold large fish stocks, these areas were leased to angling clubs , the leases are no longer required by the clubs because there are no fish to be caught, they were all taken legally and illegally, don't believe me?

Well what about the Nene ,near to the offices of Angling Times? fish thefts are rife, the problem is (and some-one has already mentioned it) the lack of policing carried out, the authority's are just not interested mate, why? because anglers are not making enough noise! it is obvious to me we can hardly try to stop others from taking fish to eat ,when we continue to do so! so step by step we have to change things, the problem lies in all the negative comments made by ill informed anglers, so we do nothing,fine! anglers are very good at doing nothing! remember the banning of lead because some vocal do gooders accused anglers of spilling vast quantity's on the riverbanks causing the death of thousands of swans?

Carry on doing nothing about a growing problem until it is too late, just do not moan when that day comes.


I am a match angler .....not an anti-Christ!!!]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of agree with Gozzer.

 

Yes Im sure some "immigrants" are taking fish to eat.No I dont think that it is wrong to take fish full stop.Yes I do agree we need to bring the size limits/takeable limits in to line.

 

BUT above all I ask is the problem as big as it is made out to be? Im not so sure either way but what I am sure of is that there are far far greater problems in angling that need addressing.

 

AT? well once again I feel this is yet another attention seeking thing which will bite us in the arse just so they sell a few papers.I remember the problems for us actual pikers who did manage to secure piking and better pike management policies on the trout reservoirs that AT,s "Pike Power" crusade did.

 

Keith Arthur,I dont know if I would say he is the most knowledgable as such a thing is very subjective but due to his multiple media assosiations then I would certainly agree he would be very influential.Some thing he should recognise and the responsibility of which he should take seriously.Not so sure he has chosen the best/most important of issues to throw his weight behind though.


And thats my "non indicative opinion"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...