Norfolk & Suffolk Broads need your help.

[Peter Waller]

I know that many of you go fishing on the Broads, and very often by boat. Your rights to navigate and fish as you wish are under serious threat. The controls that have been put in place, with questionable legality, on Horsey Mere are just the tip of a very big iceburg.

 

There is a petition here:

http://www.speakerscorner.com/forum/topic4...gement-petition

please go and have a look, and please consider signing it.

 

The Broads is a member of the National Park family. What happens here could also happen on other park waters. It is not just my fishing that's at risk, its also yours.

 

Please pass this link on. Your help will be appreciated, thank you.

 

P.S. Where the petition asks for comments might I suggest that you mention that you are an angler.

 

You don't need to register just to sign. (I don't think).

Edited October 23, 2006 by Peter Waller

[Bob Bradford]

Lets get this right then Mr Waller....you want me and other anglers to help so you can navigate freely up and down the Broads? yet you and several other navigation committee members are calling for a ban on long poles?

 

You stated on here on another issue that you are an angler first and a sailor boy second.........I think you must be confused .

[KAYC]

Petition signed peter ( no: 90 ) A just cause for all broads users I think.

[Peter Waller]

Bob, what can I say about you and your opinion? And you talk about me and my predudices!

 

It isn't just about my sailing being under threat, it is also about my angling. The Broads Bill is asking for the powers to control where people go within the Broads executive area. Many of us anglers use boats. We would wish to retain the right to be able to go off the beaten path as we hunt fish. That is under threat, make no mistake about it. Fishing is under threat. Places such as Hickling could be off bounds to angling boats going outside the marker posts, do you really want that to happen? Bob, take your head out from where the sun don't shine, it isn't very nice up there!

[pikergonecarpin]

Signed (number 99 now)

 

Paul.

[gozzer]

Done Peter, No 112

 

Bob, please read the letter and then decide, it will effect you.

 

 

John

[Bob Bradford]

My point is thus;

 

Because non of the Broads navigation committee own or use a long pole they want them banned from the Broads and to hell with what other anglers think, that is not MY prejudice Mr Waller, then you have the audacity to come on here asking for anglers to cast a vote in your favour just so you can sail where you wish? I think you are the one with his head up his ........ No way will I support you or any of your cronies....you are only interested in yourself and if you do not agree with something you want it banned even if it is perfectly legal.....I have to laugh at the irony of it all! "The biter bit" ha ha.... there is a God.

[Peter Waller]

For the record, Bob, my reservations re long poles stem from the obvious ill feeling that their use is creating. Quite simply their excessive use is damaging relations between us and other Broads users.

 

Actually I do own one, although I rarely use it, not a great fan I must admit.

 

The Bill has two, atleast, passages that concern us anglers. One is the ability to remove obstructions. Now, I know full well to what use that clause might be used, and I shall object at Thursday's meeting. The other is in being able to prevent boats from anchoring in the navigation area, and you can guess how that might be used. Believe me, there is more.

 

Bob, I thought that you were to big to let petty squabbles get in your way.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Peter Waller

[Brian Carragher]

Done, no. 137

 

Come on Bob no.138 has a space next to it where you can put your name, you know you want to

[Bob Bradford]

For the record, Bob, my reservations re long poles stem from the obvious ill feeling that their use is creating. Quite simply their excessive use is damaging relations between us and other Broads users.

 

Actually I do own one.

 

The Bill has two, atleast, passages that concern us anglers. One is the ability to remove obstructions. Now, I know full well to what use that clause might be used, and I shall object at Thursday's meeting. The other is in being able to prevent boats from anchoring in the navigation area, and you can guess how that might be used. Believe me, there is more.

 

Bob, I thought that you were to big to let petty squabbles get in your way.

 

The only "ill feelings" arising from the use of long poles stems from the very selfish boating fraternity, not content with having 40/50 yards width of navigable river they want to invade the space of a few anglers....just because they can....the arrogance of these water users beggars believe, I ALWAYS request politely for them to move to the middle of the river and the replies I have received are not appropriate for this forum, now it seems the navigation committee wish to have long poles banned from the Broads....whats next on the agenda for us anglers?

This issue may seem "Petty " to you Mr Waller but now that your navigable rights are under threat and the importance you attach to your rights are in jepordy...maybe, just maybe, you can see where I am coming from....it is not so attractive when YOU are the innocent victim is it?

 

If you wish for the anglers that use the Broads for recreational purposes to back your fight don't make enemy's of us with petty ,nonsensical legislation aimed at curtailing the fun and enjoyment of a minority, the use of long poles on the Broads is a rare sight and mostly confined to one or two match lengths at the weekends as you are well aware.

 

So in short, learn from your own trials and tribulations Mr Waller...then maybe we will all be able to enjoy the Broads on an even footing, and without petty legislation interfering with our leisure time.