The Angling Trust and the Rivers Close Season is it time for some answers?

[thecrow]

I wrote:
"Perhaps you should have asked the Trust to provide a timescale re their findings, before you got involved"
You wrote:
"Perhaps the trust should not have gone to the EA without the evidence that they said would be needed?"

Can you explain how what I wrote and your response are even remotely connected??

Maybe the trust are trying to improve angling for anglers and as such it must be found out what the majority of anglers actually want; hence asking the vocal minority that frequent forums as a part of that process.

So you expect the ATr to provide progression updates of their investigations, yet not the same from government bodies......


... Strange!

Not at all connected just an example of how anyone can ask questions that mean nothing as none of the perhaps actions took place. Or it could be I chose not to give you an answer.

I don't expect the trust to give me or anyone else "progression updates" what I would like to know is why they have gone against what they said they would do before approaching the EA, if you don't want to know that's your business, others obviously do nothing wrong with that.

 

[cg74]

Not at all connected just an example of how anyone can ask questions that mean nothing as none of the perhaps actions took place. Or it could be I chose not to give you an answer.

I don't expect the trust to give me or anyone else "progression updates" what I would like to know is why they have gone against what they said they would do before approaching the EA, if you don't want to know that's your business, others obviously do nothing wrong with that.

In short; pointless posting on your part!

I'll leave you to it.

 

[thecrow]

In short; pointless posting on your part!

I'll leave you to it.

Thank you for your most gracious reply :wh

 

[maverick 7]

Looking forward to you next informative post in reply as ever! XXXXX

....and here it is ......

You are wrong about the chub thing but you're so far up your own ar*e...you can't see anything but sh*t...hence the reason you talk a lot of it but I have to admit ...most of it IS funny....that is why I think you are a very funny little man Phil.

There ARE many venues in this country that has resident chub that has been thriving for donkeys years....Colin (cg74) has also given you 3 or 4 more venues with self sustained chub in them.....so that makes just two anglers ...me and Colin who know at least SIX venues between us with this "phenomena"....Just how many more of these type of venues don't you know about?...you tell us all every single day what a great Eco Warrior you are and yet you don't seem to know about this simple happening.....

I'll tell you what ......you know all those clubs you were bragging about representing?..."including the biggest one in the country"...(just to quote you)....well sunshine....I'm bloody glad my club isn't one of them ...that's for sure.

You would be hanging from Winthorpe Bridge within a week......and all the resident chub would be laughing up their dorsal fins at you all the way to Cromwell Weir.....'cos you're a funny little man Phil.

Maverick

 

[thecrow]

Cromwell Weir, ughh what a horrible place, I fished there once well didn't fish more sort of carried my gear to the bank and back to the car.

 

[Judas Priest]

Gentlemen most of us have been around long enough to know that some of those involved in the ATr are more slippery than an eel when it comes to giving a straight answer to a straight question, so I wouldn't bet on getting any answers until all is done and dusted either way.

 

[maverick 7]

Cromwell Weir, ughh what a horrible place, I fished there once well didn't fish more sort of carried my gear to the bank and back to the car.

Very funny Crow but I know what you mean mate....done it regularly myself.....particularly this year..

.......I meant last year of course.

Maverick

 

[loggerhead]

Angler opinion over this issue was . 38.5% were in favour of keeping the close season as it is in its current form. 26.5% were only in favour of changes if supported by scientific evidence that proved change would not be detrimental to rivers whilst only 14.9% thought it should be scrapped altogether.

Seems to me that according to your own figures over 41% of those anglers that responded wouldn't mind seeing the CS abolished (sorry, should say amended or abolished) IF it can be proven not to be detrimental. That seems to me to be a mandate for at least carrying out some research. Until such time as there are some results to examine then they have no reason to tell anyone what, where or how they are carrying it out as certain indivuals interferance could jeodardise the outcome.

Why are you willing to risk damage being done to fisheries while any trials are being carried out?

That prejudges what the results will be, doesn't it. If the results of the research show no detrimental harm will be done then carrying out the research will also do no harm. Even so, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, except that in this case, you may not actually break any at all. Who knows?

Oh, of course! Crow knows doesn't he? I'm afraid that this entire thread has just been used as another battering ram to try and break down the Trust by the usual non-member miscreants. It's pathetic, pathetic because they are just afraid of the possible that there is no threat to fish life.

 

[The bad one]

....and here it is ......

You are wrong about the chub thing but you're so far up your own ar*e...you can't see anything but sh*t...hence the reason you talk a lot of it but I have to admit ...most of it IS funny....that is why I think you are a very funny little man Phil.

There ARE many venues in this country that has resident chub that has been thriving for donkeys years....Colin (cg74) has also given you 3 or 4 more venues with self sustained chub in them.....so that makes just two anglers ...me and Colin who know at least SIX venues between us with this "phenomena"....Just how many more of these type of venues don't you know about?...you tell us all every single day what a great Eco Warrior you are and yet you don't seem to know about this simple happening.....

I'll tell you what ......you know all those clubs you were bragging about representing?..."including the biggest one in the country"...(just to quote you)....well sunshine....I'm bloody glad my club isn't one of them ...that's for sure.

You would be hanging from Winthorpe Bridge within a week......and all the resident chub would be laughing up their dorsal fins at you all the way to Cromwell Weir.....'cos you're a funny little man Phil.

Maverick

Well I’ve looked up my arse, climbed through all the sh*t and looking out through my mouth, but all I can see is no answer to the question I asked you.
Oh well! Didn’t really expect an answer, so I wasn’t disappointed was I! May be the answer belongs to the Holbeck and beyond eh?

In your rush to pour out bileish rhetoric you forgot to read and think properly about the words I wrote at least 3 times - “struggle to reproduce.” Have a think about that and what it means, there’s a good chap! The hilarity wearing a bit thin now for me and bordering on the unfunny predictable side.

Ah your club? As I don’t know which one it is, I can’t say whether I’ve done work for them or not!. I could have done, duno? And if I have, they clearly didn’t hang me from Winthorpe Bridge as I’m still here posting.

Looking forward as ever XXXXX

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Seems to me that according to your own figures over 41% of those anglers that responded wouldn't mind seeing the CS abolished (sorry, should say amended or abolished) IF it can be proven not to be detrimental. That seems to me to be a mandate for at least carrying out some research. Until such time as there are some results to examine then they have no reason to tell anyone what, where or how they are carrying it out as certain indivuals interferance could jeodardise the outcome.That prejudges what the results will be, doesn't it. If the results of the research show no detrimental harm will be done then carrying out the research will also do no harm. Even so, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, except that in this case, you may not actually break any at all. Who knows?

Oh, of course! Crow knows doesn't he? I'm afraid that this entire thread has just been used as another battering ram to try and break down the Trust by the usual non-member miscreants. It's pathetic, pathetic because they are just afraid of the possible that there is no threat to fish life.

Loggerhead,
We could of course manipulate the figures another way, if any study is carried and I say "if" as we do not know that is going to happen. Now lets say that a study is carried out and it is found that it would be detrimental to our rivers if the CS was altered or indeed abolished. The 26.5% who say they would only support change if it was found not be detrimental would then side with the 38.5% who do not want to see any change giving us 65.0% of anglers in favour of keeping the CS as it is. By the way only 3.5% thought the dates should be changed.

All conjecture of course simply because the AT are either unwilling or unable to tell the angling world, an angling world they consulted just what they are doing.

I have made it clear (well I thought I had) that I am,

1, Not anti Angling Trust (I support them via my club memberships)
2, Had no wish to bring anyone's integrity into question.

But here you are calling others miscreants ( a word that has many meanings none of which are pleasant) none of which would describe me!

Mad, belligerent, persistent, good looking and the best barbel angler in the universe, these are words that some have used to describe me. Some have used others that I could not possibly use on this family forum. These are words I can admit to, but miscreant? Never!

I am the one who started this topic (so must be the one you are calling miscreant) not as a battering ram to break down the trust, but as a means of gaining information from the Angling Trust no more no less.

You may wish to withdraw your insult aimed at your fellow anglers and of course me?

Regards
Ray

 

[maverick 7]

Well I’ve looked up my arse, climbed through all the sh*t and looking out through my mouth, but all I can see is no answer to the question I asked you.
Oh well! Didn’t really expect an answer, so I wasn’t disappointed was I! May be the answer belongs to the Holbeck and beyond eh?

In your rush to pour out bileish rhetoric you forgot to read and think properly about the words I wrote at least 3 times - “struggle to reproduce.” Have a think about that and what it means, there’s a good chap! The hilarity wearing a bit thin now for me and bordering on the unfunny predictable side.

Ah your club? As I don’t know which one it is, I can’t say whether I’ve done work for them or not!. I could have done, duno? And if I have, they clearly didn’t hang me from Winthorpe Bridge as I’m still here posting.

Looking forward as ever XXXXX

As no one on this planet is anywhere near as intelligent as you (despite your abysmal spelling that is)...it may seem like an impossibility for some to actually comprehend or even believe that beyond all expectations someone as densely stupid as me could even dream of understanding the mind boggling, complex phrase of "struggle to reproduce".....

......but you know what funny little man.........and as far fetched as it may seem......I do!...

......and here is what you originally said:

"Do you really understand what’s meant by riverine species? Last time I checked Chub, dace, barbel and grayling were not native to canals and lakes in the UK. And where they have been stocked in them, 3 of them don’t reproduce and the 4th struggles badly to reproduce and failing in most situations. But of course I’ll stand to be corrected on that if you can produce the evidence where it happens as a general rule and not a rarity."


Which of course is basically saying......out of these "stocked" 4 species only ONE could reproduce...but to use your words again....even that one "would struggle badly to reproduce and failing in most situations".....we are not quite sure which species this is as yet but let's assume it is the humble chub....the situation would be even worse if it wasn't chub.

Now Einstein......what I am saying is .....there has been just TWO blokes on here who knows at least 6 venues with chub that has sustained themselves for years and seem to be doing everything but "struggling to reproduce" ....JUST TWO BLOKES....how many more blokes know about venues like this....so I strongly believe, despite your far superior knowledge on all things Earthly....I think there is a possibility that you may be wrong...and I reckon that could make the 10 o' Clock News.

So funny little man......here is a question for you to answer......WHY do you say chub "struggle badly to reproduce and fail in most situations"...when there is lots of crystal clear evidence that this is simply not true?.......

As for my club...some of my club pals are quite animalistic and really belong in cages...so the reason you were not hung up on Winthorpe Bridge is because you definitely haven't done work for us...or you WOULD have been hanging from Winthorpe Bridge ....believe me!

Tight Lines and have a great day.

Maverick

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Moderation note:

We are receiving complaints regarding this thread and some of the comments being made.

Final warning PM's have been sent.

So, please. let's try to keep the discussions civil and within the bounds of good manners.

 

[Poshpaul (Angling Trust and PaSC)]

Perhaps it is time to remind folk that the site offers both a "personal message" and "ignore" facility. Why not try them out?

Just remember there's only 4 of us who have to read everything!

 

[Titus]

Rude and belligerent I would describe it as and the reason I left the debate.

If you give yourself a name like The Bad One or Maverick I suppose you have to try and live up to it but there's no need for it chaps, attack the argument not the author.

 

[greenie62]

.....Just remember there's only 4 of us who have to read everything!

Our hearts bleed for you Paul! mg:

How long do you have to do your penance for? - and what did you do to deserve such a cruel and unusual punishment? You must have been a very naughty boy!

Apologies for being outside the OP topic!
Tight Lines:thumbs:

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Gentlemen,
I have had a response to my e-mail sent to the AT. Without going in to detail an up date can be expect to be published very soon.

I am happy to now await that update having been told it will be forth coming, and that it was right to press on this issue.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[thecrow]

That prejudges what the results will be, doesn't it. If the results of the research show no detrimental harm will be done then carrying out the research will also do no harm. Even so, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, except that in this case, you may not actually break any at all. Who knows?

Oh, of course! Crow knows doesn't he? I'm afraid that this entire thread has just been used as another battering ram to try and break down the Trust by the usual non-member miscreants. It's pathetic, pathetic because they are just afraid of the possible that there is no threat to fish life

All through this thread I have said that the trust should do what they said they would do BEFORE talking to the EA THEY HAVENT DONE THAT, WHY?

The usual terminology from someone to none members of the trust, I have a right to MY opinions that does not make me what you called me, and to answer your statement NO I DONT KNOW THATS WHY the trust should be answering questions to members and none members as the results of what they are doing may affect both parties. is the trust so fragile that it needs protecting by you, I doubt your rhetoric will do anything for them either.

Would you answer one question please? Do you work for the angling trust or the EA?

---------- Post added at 12:56 ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 ----------

I have had a response to my e-mail sent to the AT. Without going in to detail an up date can be expect to be published very soon.

I am happy to now await that update having been told it will be forth coming, and that it was right to press on this issue.

Progress, thank you Ray..................

 

[Bob Hornegold]

Seems to me that according to your own figures over 41% of those anglers that responded wouldn't mind seeing the CS abolished (sorry, should say amended or abolished) IF it can be proven not to be detrimental. That seems to me to be a mandate for at least carrying out some research. Until such time as there are some results to examine then they have no reason to tell anyone what, where or how they are carrying it out as certain indivuals interferance could jeodardise the outcome.That prejudges what the results will be, doesn't it. If the results of the research show no detrimental harm will be done then carrying out the research will also do no harm. Even so, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, except that in this case, you may not actually break any at all. Who knows?

Oh, of course! Crow knows doesn't he? I'm afraid that this entire thread has just been used as another battering ram to try and break down the Trust by the usual non-member miscreants. It's pathetic, pathetic because they are just afraid of the possible that there is no threat to fish life.

Loggerhead

Like a lot of people I was in the Angling Trust and sat on a committee, but I disagree with a lot of the policies and have not been a member now for a number of years.

So what right do you think they have to suggest changes to the Close Season with only 17,000 odd individual members when there are over 1,000000 anglers in this country ?

And Non Members/Members have every right to criticise the Trust on such issues they do not agree with, called Free Speech.

Bob

 

[The bad one]

Rude and belligerent I would describe it as and the reason I left the debate.

If you give yourself a name like The Bad One or Maverick I suppose you have to try and live up to it but there's no need for it chaps, attack the argument not the author.

That's rich coming from you after the abusive PM you sent me the other day!

Oh and the name was given to me on here by someone, I can't remember who, in jest as being down with the kids! It stuck and appealed to my sense of humour, so I adopted it!

 

[Judas Priest]

Well done Ray on your belligerence, pig headedness, terrier like qualities, and everything else you've been called over the years BUT...........





















Good looking never