Should Clubs hang on to waters that are seldom fished.

[no-one in particular]

The point was raised by Jimlad on another thread so rather than taking it off topic I thought I would set a new one.
Basically he asked if clubs would hang on to rivers if no one fishes them?
In my experience they do because they like it on their CV. When attracting new members they like to show how many waters they control, the longer the list the more attractive it is to induce someone to join.. Some clubs I know have at least one or two big carp waters and these are where most members fish, totally ignoring the rivers but, they would revolt if their clubs let them go. Although they may not fish them they like the fact they can; many a club member has proudly extolled and boasted the virtues of his clubs long list of waters but when I ask if they fish them they say they don't, especially the rivers..
One club I know has one very good carp and tench water, you have to phone up and book your place on it a week in advance, yet it has miles of rivers to its name that are empty and even a lot of its other lakes, most of which are miles away.
Other clubs snatch up waters miles from their base, some in my area are at least 50 miles away, no one ever travels to fish them, they are empty. Some of the very big clubs even further away.
One nice little village club that had a nice little bit of day ticket river was taken over by a club miles away. I did not want to join it to fish its waters that I could never travel to just to carry on fishing this one little bit.
Another excellent trout river was taken over by a wealthy Northern syndicate. Its empty, they never travel down to actually fish it, its just a nice boast for them to own its fishing rights is my guess.
One little Rudd pool I knew that was useless but free for kids to fish was taken up by a club once, why? Just to add another water to its list for the sake of it. Not seen any kiddies having some fun there since.
I calculated once that if I wanted to fish all waters within a 30 mile radius of me I would have to join 15 clubs and still counting. I know there are all sorts of affiliation/guest opportunities but still its not really healthy.
To my mind this has set up a unhealthy scenario, in a crowded island; a lot of good water is just being sidelined while other waters get undue angling pressure.
I don't really have an answer and this is a bit of a moan thread but I think it could be done better. A system of some sort, not just a reckless accumulation of waters without any thought to if its actually going to benefit anyone.
There must be a more intelligent way of dividing our fishing rights.

 

[thecrow]

If a club can afford the rents on river stretches that are lightly fished then I would say yes keep them, if they don't there is a danger that the landowner will look to replace the lost income with another activity on the river that may preclude angling altogether, stretches with a weir being rented out to a canoeing club is one possibility another is it being taken over by an organisation such as the RSPB.

Another reason I am for clubs holding on to these stretches is that there is always the possibility of it going to a small syndicate robbing the club members that did occasionally fish it the opportunity to do so, there have been cases in the past where a high priced syndicate has taken a water off a club until all the big fish died and then the syndicate disappeared and the club took it back over.

Some clubs own stretches of river that although they may be lightly fished cost the club little or nothing each season but may be as you say an asset that attracts members.

 

[rubio]

I am inclined to agree with you about the motives for clubs including river stretches in many, or indeed most instances. Locally a single club dominates the rights to the vast majority of the river but it is rarely fished. One stretch is still used to hold matches. There were, in times gone by, large competitive fields for these matches; now half a dozen compete half a dozen times a year. They also complain about poor catches. There always were times when scratching for bites was necessary, but when on song produced nets along the full length. Fewer people fishing less often naturally provides more outlier results, and these are often at the 'poor' end.
The same areas have quality roach, dace,perch and chub. These can be reliably targetted with stealth and a mobile approach, yet few, very few, even try. I walk the banks throughout the year and rarely see anyone. Those I do tend to be the same few. I'm not a great angler and definitely not on the Drennan etc. specimen lists but I've had rudd and roach to just under, sadly, 2lbs; Chub over 5lbs and the occasional perch and pike that would also be considered specimen fish on such a small river. Last year I had a dace of 14ozs that I mentioned to the club secretary. His opinion was that i probably mis-identified a small chub. Given that sort of attitude I'm not surprised the river receives little attention.
All the better for me!

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I would think that it is purely a financial decision inasmuch as if the club has the funding available then why not maintain a venue even if the members don;t use it too much?

My two local clubs have an abundance of venues between them, rivers, canals and still waters, and yet I can almost guarantee to go to half a dozen river stretches and never see another angler.

Those two clubs have a combined membership of around five thousand, mostly within a 60 mile radius.

So, to attract new members then a club needs to have a good portfolio of venues as they are competing against quite a few in my area.

 

[theartist]

A club that doesn't offer the option of day tickets is in effect a syndicate in that the doors are closed to the part time angler or someone visiting the area who only wishes too fish it once.

On the flip side there are some amazing day ticket stretches of river that offer wonderful value at a really fair price so hats off to the clubs that control them, although sadly they mostly tend to be far away from the expensive South East.

If a lot more stretches of river were less exclusive then a few more people would fish them.

 

[wanderer]

Afew big clubs are picking up miles of river and canal at very low leases due to lack of demand, its good that they do this, because the riparian owners may well divesify and angling will be lost for ever on these endless miles, Mr Crow highlighted this point and i hope it is maintained. Most small clubs are dominated by match anglers, most of whom have switched to carp puddles and no longer have any interest in anything else. At weekends, when the working population show up, guess what, the match brigade have reserved the venue, Syndicates or the river and canals are the answer, chances are you will never see a bailiff anyway, they just dont expect any one there, there loss is our gain, it will all end in tears.

 

[Jim Crosskey 2]

Can't help feeling that this is mostly down to the landowner. If i had a stretch of river, leased to a club for a pittance - and someone approached me to say that they would happily form a syndicate which would guarantee a higher level of income then that would certainly get my attention.

If this also corresponded with a period of time where the behavior of the current set of anglers was causing issues - litter, anti-social stuff, not closing gates, parking in the wrong place - and the syndicate seemed to offer better management and bailiffs - then again, it would get my attention.

I'm aware that frequently the scenario above doesn't actually involve the members of the club, however if the club doesn't bailiff effectively then you'll find people turning up and helping themselves. These "anglers" can ruin a fishery so its no wonder that the landowner would consider changing the way the fishery is run.

However, in response to the more general aspect of needing to join 15 clubs to fish your local waters.... my take on that is that you must be a lucky man to have so much time on your hands! If it were me in that situation, i would join a couple and give their waters a go.... and keep the ticket i liked best the following season and change the one i didn't. In the fifteen years it will take me to work my way round them, likely things will change - and like painting the forth bridge, you could start again at the beginning. A pretty first world problem in my book!

I guess there's another underlying question in all of this which is how much are we prepared to pay for our fishing? For me - the opposite ends of the spectrum are this: the river thames all through my home-town is available free to residents, and i certainly try to make the most of that - so that's the bottom end. At the upper - myself and a few friends go to the wye a few times a year and generally fish Wye and Usk foundation beats, whilst staying in a hotel or pub. Once you figure accommodation, bait and the day tickets out (whoops forgot the beer!) i reckon we're likely close to £100 each a day.

 

[no-one in particular]

OK, just a quick reply while I ponder this a bit more. My post really raises two questions
Crow does make a good point, if these waters were let go by clubs, they would just be lost. Though he does say if they are lightly fished which would be OK but, I see many waters never fished, wasted amenity.
Peter says these are financial decisions, rightly so, for the good of the clubs finances but are they just to induce new members, whats the use of a bit water 50 miles away that's hardly ever going to be visited. are they any good for existing members? Are these decisions just to increase subscriptions.
Are these just financial decisions and not good angling decisions, for the good of angling for the club and the wider good for angling across the whole spectrum?
There is no body that has any control over this, no overall strategy across the country that could maintain it for the whole of angling and anglers.
Just a free for all, thousands of clubs competing with each other making I guess in the main their own financial decisions, is it so good for angling.
The angling trust I believe has many club memberships, could they put some thought into this. Get the clubs together, develop a better strategy for the country, anglers and angling as a whole.

---------- Post added at 15:07 ---------- Previous post was at 13:27 ----------

Put it one way, if those 15+ clubs within a 30 mile radius were 3 clubs with a 10 mile radius with only waters within their 10 miles, they would maintain their waters a lot better, probably get used more. And with an agreement between them their members could ring up and have a 3 per year guest ticket on the others. Would be easier all round, more attractive to prospective anglers and maybe more members. I would be one for sure.
It would avoid those pitiful examples I gave .
It is what it is, its the way it evolved but without any planning or strategy. Its a shame because there must be a better way but it is never going to happen, I am on my own on this, fair enough-just bumble along the way it is.

 

[chub_on_the_block]

There is a good system with local clubs sharing much of the River Ivel in Bedfordshire, through affiliation with the Ivel Protection Association (IPA). I think theres about a dozen affiliate clubs. The Ivel stretches are not usually one of these club's main water and are still relatively under-fished - but it keeps them open as fisheries. Some of the clubs also have their own exclusive bits of the Ivel.

The only downside is that there are no day tickets to fish anywhere on the Ivel, although residents of Biggleswade have a short free stretch (which is disputed I think). I can think of similar situations in other small rivers - eg Upper Lee.

One large organisation with a wide range of river sections around London is the London Anglers Association (LAA) and this does issue day tickets for some reaches. From experience on the Great Ouse you rarely saw a bailiff on the bank so some sections were effectively free fishing.

As others have pointed out already, i think there should always be a mix of free and day ticket fishing in an area and I think it is unfortunate when all sections of river are tied up by syndicates or season-only clubs. For starters, casual visitors to an area would be able to fish when on holiday or visiting relations etc. On the Wye, Dorset Stour and Hants Avon there there are many successful day ticket sections, which draw anglers from far afield.

 

[trotter2]

Due to the fact that there is hardly a bidding war going on with new available waters at the moment. If a club can afford it with dwindling signed up paying members its there own personal decision. But I would look for quality not quantity. Pointless having miles of fishing when 3/4 of its not worth wetting a line on.
May look impressive on paper it can have the opposite desired effect.

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

If clubs don't hang onto such waters, then they will find it hard to get them back at a later date. Its down to cost with many clubs.

There is a way clubs can hang on to such waters at no extra cost. The club can just sell a season ticket for that water to non club members. Club members if they should want to fish it still can, at no extra cost. Its a club within a club.

I am in a club that i think has got a few things wrong, Day tickets being one.

I can't take a mate, or my son Ben when he comes home between his world trip. Thats on all the clubs waters. If the waters where heavily fished i could understand, but half the time you don't see anyone on them.

 

[The bad one]

My view to the original question It is nobody's business other than the controlling club and its members whether they keep a water or not. As to clubs controlling water many miles from its base, again that's up to those clubs and members whether they do or don't acquire such waters.

After all we live in a free market economy not a centrally planned one!

Simple answer is, if you want to fish such waters and you are relatively local, apply to join the club who controls it.

The modern day successful clubs have a wide geographical base to their membership, along with a wide geographical spread to the waters they control.

Anglers are a funny breed and the grass is always greener the further away from where you're based.

 

[no-one in particular]

Its not always the case but I see many waters acquired by clubs far away from their base that are never fished and badly maintained. Why spend money, time and effort maintaining a water that's never fished and is costly to maintain because of distance. These clubs put all this effort into their most popular waters which are usually closer to base.
Giving up these waters would be lost as Crow and Ray pointed out. Could they sometimes swap waters with others clubs where it was practical with any balancing of monetary values. Moving them nearer to a base club where they might get used, stocked and maintained more. Would clubs and their members derive a lot of benefit from this?
Is this ever considered.

---------- Post added at 09:04 ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 ----------

Simple answer is, if you want to fish such waters and you are relatively local, apply to join the club who controls it.

Except that some waters I want to fish are controlled by clubs that are far away, the main body of their waters are beyond me, impractical to travel to. I am paying to fish miles of water and lakes for nothing, just to fish one little local stretch. And these local stretches are ignored by their club members and not usually maintained in any way as I suggested above. A free market is fine but is it always good for anglers and angling in general. When and were it is not, should solutions be found or at least considered.., its a free market and I agree its up to clubs and members what they do but whats the use of a water miles away that never gets used or maintained, they are just acquired for commercial reasons. At least consider giving it over to someone where it might. I don't know if this is practical, I am not knowledgeable enough about these things but it just seems to me there must be a better way of dividing our fishing that's more practical in some cases..

I might add, its not just me, thousands of people have lost their bit of local fishing because of this, some examples I gave in my first post. A peasants revolt maybe needed. Big fat commercial greedy *******s takes over little local pond, puts a big sign up, no fishing unless you give me £100. Only joking. Sounds good though.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Could they sometimes swap waters with others clubs where it was practical with any balancing of monetary values. Moving them nearer to a base club where they might get used, stocked and maintained more. Would clubs and their members derive a lot of benefit from this? Is this ever considered.

Mark, yes, it is undertaken in my area where quite a few local clubs have a "sharing" agreement either free of charge to members of the participating clubs or in one case I know of, by paying a small surcharge to get the "shared book"

It does however only seem to be the smaller clubs that go into these agreements as seemingly the really larger clubs don't need to as their membership is high enough to be self sufficient.

 

[greenie62]

...It does however only seem to be the smaller clubs that go into these agreements as seemingly the really larger clubs don't need to as their membership is high enough to be self sufficient.

These 'sharing agreements' are often started as a protective measure by the smaller clubs where there is an enquiring predatory club from a non-local area with the 'richer than yow' attitude.

The resentment to the outsiders is often due to their habit of 'cherry-picking' leases for 'known beats', leaving miles of bank un-fished and un-fishable because it's now controlled by non-local clubs who have no interest in the local dimension - after all why should they? - they've got the rights and [to quote TBO]:

It is nobody's business other than the controlling club and its members

I would like to see all clubs as 'local' where they are part of the community and put something back into the community rather than just a few quid into the back pockets of a wealthy land-owner - or increasingly nowadays - a 'land management company' with HQ in the Caymans (other tax-shelters are available ).

[A quick 'mea culpa' to the Mods if that's too political!]

 

[theartist]

Without going too far off topic wouldn't a national angling club work?

If say the EA or Angling Trust got together and owned a few waters in each region and incorporated that into the licence fee, availiable for all licence holders and free to local kids. They could also lease some of the club waters that some clubs are thinking of letting go. I think a lot of anglers would rather pay a bit more for their licence if they got more than a piece of card at the end of the day.

My mother in law loves going to different places around the country visiting RSPB places and it works for the National trust too.

 

[no-one in particular]

Its not often the cherries Greenie, these cost money and they might tempt a few members to travel occasionally. This is the way I see it happens, two or three clubs via for membership, they have some spare cash and they know the bigger their water CV is the more likely they are going to attract members from their rivals. Any water will do, no matter how far away it is,the cheaper the better because no ones going to fish it anyway. Its just in their commercial interest to add on the list of waters they control. Whether its any use or not is immaterial.
They come down stick their sign up and that's the last anyone ever sees of them or their members and forget about maintaining it..Thank you very much and goodbye!

( I am not anti club I might add, they are good for angling but this practice is not IMO)

Local clubs, 10-15 mile radius, who travels more than 10 miles anyway on a regular basis to fish, well maintained, looked after and stocked, worth locals joining; with an agreement with other nearby clubs. Perfect world, its never going to happen, in Peters neck of the woods possibly but its not a model that's general and that's a shame..

The free market has rules to benefit the consumer, not here.

 

[laguna]

Its a possessive mindset that hogs water and refuses to let go, if only to boast, makes for a wonderful conversation thats nothing more than an unproductive show piece. But a large portfolio attracts new members as it provides them with different options should they want it. Owning fishing rights is to be revered much like it is to own anything in life that you earn and acquire over time. Even if some of us put less emphasis on material things in life, we sometimes possess with a passion that which is ours... a human trait perhaps for the sake of owning it?

On the subject of kids fishing tiddler pools for free. It should be obligatory for every 'rich' club to allocate free fishing for kids. That is; a pond or stretch of river seldom used by its senior members with no carp in so they get to learn and appreciate the finer art of angling and all that the sport has to offer.

 

[no-one in particular]

Its a possessive mindset that hogs water and refuses to let go, if only to boast, makes for a wonderful conversation thats nothing more than an unproductive show piece. But a large portfolio attracts new members as it provides them with different options should they want it. Owning fishing rights is to be revered much like it is to own anything in life that you earn and acquire over time. Even if some of us put less emphasis on material things in life, we sometimes possess with a passion that which is ours... a human trait perhaps for the sake of owning it?

On the subject of kids fishing tiddler pools for free. It should be obligatory for every 'rich' club to allocate free fishing for kids. That is; a pond or stretch of river seldom used by its senior members with no carp in so they get to learn and appreciate the finer art of angling and all that the sport has to offer.

Your first paragraph echos my thought Laguana, its a trait for sure, own as much as you can whether you need or not.

Kids pools good idea but not in my case. There was a little kids pool, no more than 20ft across. I used to see little kids fishing it occasionally as I often passed it on a bus. I never knew who owned it , some horsey people I think but they obviously never worried about it. I tried it once just to see what was in it, it was nice a few trees around it in a nice little meadow. nothing but tiny little Rudd, it was covered in weed and just a couple of spots you could fish it, ideal for kids and free to come and go as they wished.
I was dismayed one day to see a sign No Fishing, AAAA or whatever club it was. Never seen a kid fishing it since, its still the same, covered in weed, etc. If it had been worked on, opened up, stocked with some fish and members fished it , great. But no, it was just bought for the sake of ownership. Really made me angry that one grrrr.

The same with 30 miles of prime chalk stream fishing. drove along it for years, never once did I see an angler on it. I caught up with someone once and asked him, the rights had been bought by some wealthy businessmen. They did not use it, allow anyone else to use it, the local villagers never got a look in, but they owned it, must have been a proud boast to own such a thing whether they needed it or not. And that's not an anti rich man gripe, its just something that's not right. An amenity denied to all and wasted. Ownership for the sake of it once again.
I am not saying anymore on the subject, it will just turn into a bit of a rant and from the majority of answers I am in the wrong. I think I will just preserve my own judgement on that.

 

[greenie62]

...If say the EA or Angling Trust got together and owned a few waters in each region and incorporated that into the licence fee,...

Used to be the case that many River Boards' licences had nominated 'free' stretches available to all licence holders - these tended to disappear when the River Boards were susumed into the EA - sometimes re-emerging as parts of a Rivers Trust available at 'affordable' Day Ticket rates - other times acquired by the large Angling Clubs as part of their portfolios.

Without going too far off topic wouldn't a national angling club work?

Perhaps that's the way we're heading - with the 'rich' clubs taking over more and more waters - then combining their interests - so that eventually we end-up with a National Angling Club - a bit of a 'reductio ad absurdem' - but would it be good for Angling in the UK?

I'm tempted to comment that Rivers aren't just about Angling - it's about the wider environment - pollution, land and water management, flood prevention/mitigation, birding, wildlife, insects, and other leisure activities - the 'ownership' of all these aspects under the control of a single Interest group could lead to a lot of p---ed-off would-be stakeholders!mg:
Just think of the consequences of e.g. RSPB - controlling all waterside activities! mg: