|
Post by telemarks on Jul 24, 2009 11:47:56 GMT -1
Broken lines happen, some anglers just shrug their shoulders granted, if , however the line is impossible toretrieve what would you have me do? I'd suggest the only sensible and humane answer is not to fish in places or in ways where there is a strong possibility of leaving line or tackle that is impossible to for you to retrieve. Discuss. As an aside, as a youth I must have removed literally miles and miles of fishermans discarded line from the Canalsides, most of it was retrievable (from a Canoe). I used to reward those few friendly fisherman with the the large quantities of fishing floats that I'd found snared up (on the condition they took all the handfuls of line away that I'd collected). Its amazing all the sizes, shapes and colours of these floats, they must be cheap.
|
|
pooter
Lamp Post Counter
Posts: 12
|
Post by pooter on Jul 24, 2009 12:15:05 GMT -1
|
|
|
Post by nickmawer on Jul 24, 2009 12:20:38 GMT -1
Mr Pooter – you have missed the point. We do not believe that canoeists should have to pay because we don’t need anything in return apart from access which we believe should be free anyway. However, paddlers who are members of the BCU pay for a license as part of their membership. This license allows them to paddle on public navigations – ie canals and a few rivers such as the Wey. If paying for an annual license was the only sticking point for shared access, then I am sure that most canoeists would not object.
I have no problems with fish ladders being constructed on weirs, however when I last checked, Conway falls was entirely natural, yet it has a fish ladder allowing fish to get to an area where they were never able to get before.
I am sure that angling organizations have been active in clearing rivers, your ignorance of the actions of others in clearing rivers does not mean that they don’t play an important and worthwhile part.
I am well aware of what constitutes a redd but a paddle passing over a redd does no more damage than a twig or a duck.
By the way, as for camping in my garden, I would no more wish you to camp in my garden than I would wish to camp in yours. Your argument is a straw man.
|
|
pooter
Lamp Post Counter
Posts: 12
|
Post by pooter on Jul 24, 2009 12:35:28 GMT -1
My analogy re. your garden is a response to your argument that you have this seemingly unassailable right to 'paddle' wherever you wish-the fact is none of us can go wherever we wish, , nothing personal here just deal with it. I referred to man made wiers, here's one definition, note the term 'navigable' :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weir. Pertaining to boats etc perhaps? The ladders are to allow access for spawning fish, not anglers sport, I'm glad you now recognise that. I guess I am ignorant of canoists cleaning parties, having never seen one in 30 years bankside is obviously ignorance on my part, but again, anecdotal as you may have never seen anglers take their rubbish home either, is that ignorance on your part? the only things anglers wish for are clean rivers which everyone benefits from and a healthy fish population which we, as anglers benefit from. I think the twig/duck comparism to a canoists paddle is laughable at best, water displacement is a little greater with oars or paddles than a twig or a duck , add to which, both have been around considerably longer than canoes. Have you read the link I posted?
|
|
|
Post by nickmawer on Jul 24, 2009 12:42:03 GMT -1
My analogy re. your garden is a response to your argument that you have this seemingly unassailable right to 'paddle' wherever you wish-the fact is none of us can go wherever we wish, As I said: - "straw man" We are just asking for the right to roam that exists in Scotland to apply in England. I don't think that this is in anyway unreasonable.
|
|
|
Post by nickmawer on Jul 24, 2009 12:45:55 GMT -1
Fish ladders are installed to enable salmon to reach their spawning grounds when a weir has been installed, As I said Conway falls is not a weir - or are you disputing this? A fish ladder was installed to enable migrating fish to reach water where no migrating fish ever previously went.
|
|
|
Post by nickmawer on Jul 24, 2009 12:50:42 GMT -1
Have you read the link I posted? Yes - what is your point?
|
|
pooter
Lamp Post Counter
Posts: 12
|
Post by pooter on Jul 24, 2009 12:54:24 GMT -1
Different laws apply in Scotland, move there if it suits your agenda, your desires are selfish to say the least "change the law to suit me" , oh, ok then.
So, why was the ladder installed? I'm curious here. And in the quote you conveniantly posted, I did say weirs, not Conway falls. An exception does not prove the rule, unless you wish to re-write facts as well as the constitution? If we're all free to roam where we please, I'm definately up for a rave in your garden, whereabouts are you?
|
|
|
Post by telemarks on Jul 24, 2009 12:58:23 GMT -1
Different laws apply in Scotland, Actually ... Scotland is aligned with the rest of the world. Only in England and Wales is access to our waterways restricted. Pooter did you read my point? Care to respond? Broken lines happen, some anglers just shrug their shoulders granted, if , however the line is impossible to retrieve what would you have me do? I'd suggest the only sensible and humane answer is not to fish in places or in ways where there is a strong possibility of leaving line or tackle that is impossible for you to retrieve. Discuss.
|
|
|
Post by nickmawer on Jul 24, 2009 12:59:10 GMT -1
Different laws apply in Scotland, move there if it suits your agenda, your desires are selfish to say the least Let me see - I'd like to share access, and you?
|
|
pooter
Lamp Post Counter
Posts: 12
|
Post by pooter on Jul 24, 2009 13:21:03 GMT -1
I'd suggest the only sensible and humane answer is not to fish in places or in ways where there is a strong possibility of leaving line or tackle that is impossible for you to retrieve.
Discuss.
If things were that simple life would be dull wouldn't it? at least a lot easier, do you seriously believe that anglers are happy to lose line and tackle at will and will fish suh places where that will invariably happen ? It's a by product of life, have you never broken anything? Of course precautions are taken , but, accidents happen, try to prevent accidents happening and should you succeed (as if) you'd be hailed a miracle worker. People leave litter, full stop, are you suggesting all anglers leave litter ? Silly point really, leave it now , you're labouring a dead point and doing yourself no favours.
|
|
pooter
Lamp Post Counter
Posts: 12
|
Post by pooter on Jul 24, 2009 13:23:23 GMT -1
Let me see - I'd like to share access, and you?
Ok, where do you live, saturday ok? I might be able to make a midweek session, there'll be oh, say 20 of us and a small sound system, address please.
|
|
|
Post by telemarks on Jul 24, 2009 13:51:15 GMT -1
Let me see - I'd like to share access, and you?Ok, where do you live, saturday ok? I might be able to make a midweek session, there'll be oh, say 20 of us and a small sound system, address please. Pooter there is a Right to Roam to agreed areas. You do not have a Right to Anywhere or a Right to Rave, or Camp. Comments about pitching a tent, or setting up a sound system on someones garden are just plain silly. But back to the serious topic of environmental damage .. Can I ask you ... have you ever seen the RSPCA try to catch and put down a tangled pair of swans? Or tried to untangle a Mallard from line only to have it die in your hands? I have. The Swans took several hours and three RSPCA crews + Police. I do find it surprising that you consider this an acceptable risk of your sport, as you say "accidents happen" ... and from what I've seem "fishermens accidents" happen regularly. Bering in mind the damage fishermen do, I'm suprised you go on at such length about a "possibility" of damage to spawning grounds by Canoeists. We all agree with you they shouldn't be damaged. They are legally protected. No Canoeist has ever been prosecuted over this.
|
|
|
Post by Fanny Bones on Jul 25, 2009 18:19:54 GMT -1
What a storm! Alright, many people came to just get rid of their anger. I've got the sense that anger was much older than just a few days. This looked to me like there had been a gas leak for quite a while and an otherwise harmless spark ignited this explosion. No surprise that a rational discussion seems impossible. Obviously a few were so blinded by their anger that they failed to recognise that this is only a fan board. If you want an answer from Mr Rhys Jones the best way is certainly to ask him directly: a letter to his agent or his production company - maybe the BBC would also forward your question to him. As I see it the quote that got the Angry Angler's (TM) goat was taken out of context. You can make every person look hostile if you extract the right quotes. I really don't know how mutual accusations can help any cause. There are people who don't know how to behave. I think they don't have tendency to favour the angling sport or paddling. What I've experienced many times though is that many people don't know what harm they risk, and if they get a polite feedback it's much more likely to get a positive reaction. Maybe it is time that anglers and canoeists stop talking about each other and start talking with each other. Is this about fish ladders, wounded animals or misbehaving anglers? Trying to make an opponent look bad could lead to the conclusion that you don't have good reasons for your opinion. The same applies to threats of physical violence, or claiming the other side isn't doing anything for the environment. And telling the webmistress to leave out of a discussion isn't leading anywhere but to animosity - even if she were American. I am looking at Britain from outside and I was surprised that rivers can be private property. Even more surprised I was that the majority didn't know that; but what really strikes me is that nobody seems to question that. I hear canoeists claim access but that is a different issue. But why is there nobody who argues that a river that carries the element most precious to all our lives should be taken care of by the public? Water is basic to any living creature. Shouldn't we all be responsible for our waterways - no matter if we are fishing licence owners or canoeists? But making rivers public property wouldn't necessarily mean access for everyone anytime anywhere. With property comes responsibility so then the government would have to weigh protection of nature in the interest of all the people against the interest of individuals carrying out their hobby. I've looked a bit into - not thoroughly, I admit, since this varies regionally - how they handle it in Germany. You can find very detailed lists of rivers with information when (time of the year as well as day time) and where you may paddle and with how many boats - provided a certain water level. There are guidelines of behaviour available in order to prevent damage, e.g. you are discouraged to go down rivers smaller then 5 metres wide. (Maybe that's where all the anglers gather? ) That's just one example how you can give access. There may be many more. Hopefully it will inspire the further debate if it continues here at all. Seems, after having left off steam the debaters left.
|
|
|
Post by Polina on Jul 25, 2009 19:59:09 GMT -1
I'm not an American! Not that I'd be ashamed if I was, but I'm English......I've just spent a lot of time in Golders Green ;D
|
|