PAC FURY OVER NUDD'S CALL FOR PIKE CULL

[mark barrett]

Mark ...Bob Nudd is a very decent man and is renowned for being a real gent, I have it on good authority that the angling journalist Stan Piecha is his ghost writer for the N.O.T.W .....Bob does not kill Pike mate.

 

 

i am sure he is bob, but regardless of this his column, carrying his name called for a pike cull.

if he is such a gent he should have issued a complete and utter retraction, but he hasnt bob.

he issued a statement that was completely ambiguous, if you saw the emails that we have had at the PAC since from Mr Turner, his representative, i am sure you would cringe, up to the point of trying to join the PAC members only forum, under a bogus name and membership number.

 

statements and columns like his only serve to split angling apart at a time when we should be banding together.

[Peter Waller]

Whether Bob has ever killed a pike is besides the point. He has agreed to his name being used to condone pike killing.

 

Brundall Angling aye, bit of a pike angling hotspot that, brave man is Bob! Hope he has got atleast four spare tyres for his Merc, lots of inbreds around there !

[smudger]

How many Pike has Bob Nudd killed or am I missing something here?

 

 

I think you're missing the point! he may not killed any pike? it's the asking/suggesting a pike cull. if bob nudd is losing fish to pike and he is angry or upsett,may i suggest that he stick's to what he seems to know best. fishing overstocked holes in the ground!!!!

[Elton]

Let's put what has gone on into perspective:

 

Bob Nudd, whether you like him or not (and most people do), is representive of many anglers.

 

What he has done is opened a dialogue on an issue that has probably been boiling under the surface for a while. I doubt very much that he has come out with such views on a whim.

 

Once the mob mentality has settled, perhaps pike anglers and match anglers will achieve a lot from this.

 

Education is the key.

 

It's my opinion that anglers of different disciplines need to learn to understand one another, talk with one another, agree to disagree with one another at times and, most importantly, find common ground and stick together.

 

We have far greater enemies.

 

And, this matter aside, take it from me that Bob is a genuinely nice guy when it comes to showing the true spirit of the angle. He has been nothing but a gentleman when dealing with the various emails that I've put in front of him over the years.

[Dave Lumb]

It doesn't matter how nice a chap Mr. Nudd is if he's talking rubbish.

 

Hitler was kind to dogs...

 

It's Nudd's reported comments that have caused the trouble and opened a divide that was closing, not pike anglers reaction to them.

[Grandma]

Let's put what has gone on into perspective:

 

Bob Nudd, whether you like him or not (and most people do), is representive of many anglers.

 

What he has done is opened a dialogue on an issue that has probably been boiling under the surface for a while. I doubt very much that he has come out with such views on a whim.

 

Surely there are better ways for someone with Bob Nudds profile to 'open a dialogue' than through a tabloid newspaper, suggesting that pike stocks in three well known rivers should be culled because they were basically annoying him.

 

Reading through the various forums his, comments have been condemned by virtually everyone, not just pike anglers.

 

His follow up comments about transferring small pike to other waters weren’t much help either. Anyone with his profile and experience of the media should know better.

[BoozleBear]

Surely there are better ways for someone with Bob Nudds profile to 'open a dialogue' than through a tabloid newspaper, suggesting that pike stocks in three well known rivers should be culled because they were basically annoying him.

 

Reading through the various forums his, comments have been condemned by virtually everyone, not just pike anglers.

 

His follow up comments about transferring small pike to other waters weren’t much help either. Anyone with his profile and experience of the media should know better.

 

Let's not get distracted by the title of the thread, or indeed the over exagerated reporting of the news of the screws!

 

He said he would like some of the smaller pike to be moved, perhaps to a predator lake. I am still against this, but it's a lot different to suggesting a cull, wouldn't you say?!

[Anderoo]

Oh dear! This isn't going well is it?

 

Taking small pike out of one water and transfering them to a 'specialist predator' water is hardly a cunning plan. I used to belong to a club where the management stocked a certain gravel pit with pike to try to make it a 'predator' water, conveniently forgetting that cormarants had wiped out the small fish population. Guess what? Pike died from starvation and were horribly thin and easy to catch (I only went there a couple of times, before I figured out what was going on). The pike that died were replaced with newly stocked pike. Etc etc etc.

 

Bob's words were clearly not thought through properly. 'Pike waters' are a seriously bad idea, and even if this wasn't the case, who want a specimen pike water full of jacks?

 

What pike need is a balanced fishery, which means that some roach will be eaten. That's nature.

 

EDIT: this wasn't a reply to you specifically Boozle, we posted at the same time

 

I persoanlly think that if a water does have a serious problem with small pike, culling some and hoping the others grow faster to balance the biomass (i.e. fewer but bigger pike, which will themselves keep the small pike number down) is better than creating artifical pike fisheries just so someone's conscience is clear.

Edited October 20, 2006 by Anderoo

[gozzer]

My first reaction to the "Bob Nudd calls for pike cull" headline, was "has he gone mad"? Is it the full story "?

Then I heard the explanation and it became clear. As I see it he was talking about certain waters being over run with small pike and suggested that on these waters a cull of small pike might be an answer. I don't have a problem with that, because we are talking about certain waters not a general cull on all waters. As I have said in two posts on this thread, I have been involved in a similar situation on a small water. The results were that a better fishery was created, even if it was in the short term. This is the crux of the matter. Do we want fisheries, or just places where fish live? There is a big difference between the two. Anyone who just says let nature sort itself out, had better give up angling now. There are not many 'natural' waters left. The introduction of, barbel to the western flowing rivers, zander, wels, a myriad of carp, restocking by anyone to make a fishery into what we (anglers) want it to be, all are unnatural. How natural is it for several gallons of maggots or thousands of pellets, boilies etc to suddenly appear on a water? How often do pike see sprats, herring or mackerel on a 'natural' water? If what Bob Nudd means, (and I think it is) that on certain waters, a cull of small pike would create a better fishery, then IMO, he's only suggesting the same as say, stocking a water with a specific species, that is detriment to the existing stock. In other words creating a fishery to meet a certain need, as most waters are now.

[BoozleBear]

EDIT: this wasn't a reply to you specifically Boozle, we posted at the same time

 

Cheers for the edit Anderoo. I nearly got the high horse out of the stable then!