Polish Posters

[Leon Roskilly]

see:

 

http://nafac.co.uk/nafacnews/2007/08/02/fi...s-the-airwaves/

[Sportsman]

see:

 

http://nafac.co.uk/nafacnews/2007/08/02/fi...s-the-airwaves/

 

Please don't misunderstand me, I am not claiming that no problem exists, and I do think that anyone, regardless of race, colour creed or ethnic origin who is found using these methods should be prosecuted appropriately. Claimed ignorance of law or custom is no defense.

I am still not convinced however that it is the end of recreational fishing in the UK as we know it.

I have first hand knowledge of the accuracy of the Daily Mail's reporting of an incident I was involved in and I wouldn't believe them if they told me I was on fire and I could smell the smoke

[Vagabond]

I usually keep out of these somewhat futile discussions, but a number of hard words seem necessary here.

 

The main threat to angling is from within.

 

Catch and release is a policy that an individual, a club, or a fishery owner may quite legitimately pursue. What is unacceptable is attempting to impose it on others - particularly by way of "blanket bans"

 

Blanket bans are a tool of politicians who are bankrupt of positive ideas - the ultimate blanket ban is a ban on angling.

 

So you practice catch and release - OK, fine, if that is what you want to do. It does NOT mean you can indulge in self-righteous posturing against those who take fish to eat. In fact, as Sportsman and others have pointed out, compared with taking a fish to eat, catch and release is morally indefensible.

 

By taking a sanctimonious "holier than thou"" stance over catch and release, such people are doing angling as a whole a great disservice, and may in the end be the root cause of the control of angling becoming outside the influence of anglers - you have only to look at the case in Germany, where the Green Party have legislated against "catch and release" - ie. if you catch a fish, it MUST be killed - returning it alive is illegal.

 

Colin W gave us a breakdown of a few million anglers, fiftythree million non-anglers, and a few thousand anti-angling nutters.

 

It is the INFLUENTIAL members of the 53 million you have to worry about - politicians, their hangers on, the media and the chattering classes.

 

THEY, not anglers, perceive catching one for the pot as defensible, and fishing for pleasure as not, and it is THEY, not anglers who will decide future policy and law. Ban "taking of fish" and the reason for angling has, in their eyes disappeared.

 

Mike Heylin, of NASA, writing in their newsletter/journal speaks of the need to preserve the right of anglers to take a fish to eat (where the owner of the fishing rights agrees).

 

You might think it odd for the representative of specialist anglers to hold that view, but this is a thinking man who realises that once the right to eat your catch is removed, angling is on very shaky ground politically.

 

..and eating your catch is not a "throwback" - it is part and parcel of the tradition of the sport. I can see how someone of our present homogenised, sanitised, deodorised, plasticised society, brought up to believe milk comes in cartons, meat on polystyrene trays and fish already battered, might not understand that, but several hundred thousand years of hunter-gathering is my heritage. To cease that life-style is retrogressive, not "moving on".

 

So, we must retain the right to eat our catch, subject of course to size and bag limits. Never mind the xenophobic rants in the mail (and alas, on this forum) If illegal methods of removing fish in quantity are being practiced, there is ample legislation in place already to combat it. Nor are our fish stocks as a whole "under threat" - except from pollution and mis-management.

 

I repeat, the main threat to angling is from within.

 

Blame anglers of foreign origin, and their foreign cuisine

 

Blame pike anglers, and livebaiters in particular.

 

Blame match anglers, and their keepnets.

 

Blame novice anglers, and their poor fish handling.

 

Blame specialist anglers and their multiple rod set-ups.

 

Blame any other type of angling but your own.

 

Blame Vagabond, who is impervious anyway.

 

....and the source of this blame? Other anglers of course.

 

Ban catching for the pot, and an outright ban is not too far behind.

 

As I have said before, I have contingency plans should an angling ban in the UK come in my lifetime (Rellies in USA and in Australia, and the wherewithal to move there) If I have to say one day -"I told you so, but I am alright Jack" then rest assured, I will.

[Steve Burke]

An excellent post, Vagabond. And put much better than I could!

[corydoras]

Well said Vagabond. That about sums it up for me.

[Steve Burke]

I can't belive that statment

If that was correct then why do you have to pay for a rod license and then pay for another to fish each stretch of river?

Why is it that most stretches of river are private and the fish protected.

 

We pay rod licenses to cover the cost of the EA, a government department that in my opinion largely does a very good job with little or no funding. Given more funding they could do a lot more. However, we've discussed that issue ad infinitum elsewhere.

 

We pay landowners (be they individuals or institutions like pension funds) so that they get a return on the capital they've invested and to compensate them for the risk they've taken.

 

As I posted earlier, although those who own the banksides don't own the fish in the rivers, they do own the sporting rights. It is these that they charge us for.

 

By the way, landowners don't own fish that they buy and then stock into a river. As soon as the fish are released into a river they're deemed to be wild.

 

The situation though is different in enclosed stillwaters. Here the fish are owned by whoever owns the fishing rights.

 

Thus anyone even fishing a private water without permission (be it a river or stillwater), regardless of whether they remove any fish or not, is guilty of a criminal offence under the Theft Act.

Edited August 7, 2007 by Steve Burke

[gozzer]

I'll add my sentiments to the above posts, and thank Vagabond for eloquently putting what I have been trying to say on here for some time now.

Maybe those who couldn't understand my stance on the subject, will find your post easier to comprehend, Vagabond.

 

Thanks

John.

[Guest tigger]

By the way, landowners don't own fish that they buy and then stock into a river. As soon as the fish are released into a river they're deemed to be wild.

 

The situation though is different in enclosed stillwaters. Here the fish are owned by whoever owns the fishing rights.

 

Thus anyone even fishing a private water without permission (be it a river or stillwater), regardless of whether they remove any fish or not, is guilty of a criminal offence under the Theft Act.

 

 

When I used to be a Gamekeeper and we released game, while it was on our land it belonged to us but when it strayed onto someone elses property it belonged to them. That was the point of walking the boundaries of the estate and dogging in, which means scaring the birds back into the estates grounds.

Isn't that the same with river fish? I thought that the fish belonged to whomever owned that stretch of the river.

[Steve Burke]

When I used to be a Gamekeeper and we released game, while it was on our land it belonged to us but when it strayed onto someone elses property it belonged to them. That was the point of walking the boundaries of the estate and dogging in, which means scaring the birds back into the estates grounds.

Isn't that the same with river fish? I thought that the fish belonged to whomever owned that stretch of the river.

 

I've no idea what the law relating to game birds is, but it does seem to be different than with fish. Confusing isn't it?

 

My knowledge of fishery law stems from having my own fishery at Wingham (that has both lakes and streams), a seminar I've attended, plus reading of specialist books on the subject.

Edited August 7, 2007 by Steve Burke

[Steve Walker]

It's not all that different, in that the ownership of the bird or fish only really becomes an issue when someone kills it. The salmon in the river may not belong to the riparian owner while they swim in the river, but if he owns the exclusive right to fish for them from his land, and having caught one and knocked it on the head it becomes his property, the difference is academic.