Home | News/Events | News | Invasive Plant Species – ATr Welcome Ban

Invasive Plant Species – ATr Welcome Ban

By

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font
Floating pennywort  can grow up to eight inches a day and costs the British economy £23.5 million per year. Floating pennywort can grow up to eight inches a day and costs the British economy £23.5 million per year.

The Angling Trust has warmly welcomed Environment Minister Richard Benyon's announcement that the sale of five invasive non-native aquatic plant species is to be banned to protect the aquatic environment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ATr report:


The banned plants are Water Fern, Parrot's Feather, Floating Pennywort, Australian Swamp Stone-crop (New Zealand Pygmyweed), and Water Primrose and the ATr has called for such a ban on several occasions in the past four years, in partnership with other organisations such as the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust.


These foreign invaders have caused huge damage to coarse and game fisheries in rivers, canals and lakes because they smother the water surface preventing light getting into the water.  When they die and rot, they suck oxygen out of the water which can lead to fish kills and a decline in invertebrate numbers.  Managing the rapid spread of these species costs the taxpayer billions of pounds each year - money which would be better spent tackling pollution, over-abstraction and barriers to coarse and game fish migration.


They have been sold in garden centres for decades and have escaped from garden ponds through flooding and when people have cleared out their ponds without understanding the damage that they can do.  By banning them, the risk of outbreaks will be greatly reduced.


Mark Lloyd, Chief Executive of the Angling Trust and Fish Legal said:

"This is very welcome news and a strong decision from a Minister who has demonstrated that he has a good understanding of the issues affecting the water environment and in particular non-native invasive species.

Other island nations around the world take biosecurity very seriously and the sale of these plants has gone on far too long.  We urge all gardeners who have any of these species in their ponds to remove and destroy them."


Invasive non-native species can have a devastating cost to the economy, costing £1.7 billion to control. Floating pennywort, which can grow up to eight inches a day, costs the British economy £23.5 million per year.


Environment Minister Richard Benyon said:

"Tough laws to curb the sale of these plants could save the country millions of pounds as well as protecting wildlife such as fish and native plants.

But as well as saving money and protecting wildlife the ban  will also help maintain access to rivers and lakes for anglers and watersport fans."


In the past the plants have been sold and planted in garden ponds, but have escaped into the wild taking over from native species and damaging some of our most sensitive habitats.


The plants form dense mats in water, depleting oxygen and light availability, causing declines in the numbers of fish and other aquatic species. They also reduce access to waterways for boating and angling and increase flood risk which, taken together, can cost millions of pounds per year.


The ban means that all retailers will now have to stop selling these plants or face a fine of up to £5,000 and possibly up to six months in prison.  Retailers have a year to adjust to the ban.


Defra, trade representatives and conservation bodies, have also been working to raise awareness of garden owners and horticulturalists to the dangers of spreading non-native species through the Be Plant Wise campaign and have given widespread support to the ban.


Keith Davenport of the Ornamental and Aquatic trades association said:

"We've recommended retailers not to sell these five plant species, in some instances, for at least a decade. So this is welcome news from Defra, making it very clear there is now a ban in place. We will continue to actively encourage our members to support the Be Plant Wise campaign."


The Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust's Head of Conservation Policy, Carrie Hume said:

"Thankfully, some of the most destructive non-native plants will no longer be on sale in our garden centres. This is the right move. The environmental and economic cost of dealing with this problem is already huge and dealing with it now is a great saving for the future."







By the Same Author



Rate this article

0




Comments (35 posted):

cg74 on 30/01/2013 13:13:35
avatar
Now this isn't a knock of the Agling Trust but what an empty statement; "Invasive plant species – ATr welcome ban" Did they help instigate the ban? (oh and Colin Gordon (cg74) welcomes the ban too)
bennygesserit on 30/01/2013 13:39:04
avatar
Now this isn't a knock of the Agling Trust but what an empty statement; "Invasive plant species – ATr welcome ban" Did they help instigate the ban? (oh and Colin Gordon (cg74) welcomes the ban too) Ha Ha you hardly expect them to say "Angling Trust backs plan to shoot Ban on Pennywort" as a campaigning organisation you would expect them to have a view and be asked about that view.
Jeff Woodhouse on 30/01/2013 15:54:10
avatar
Did they help instigate the ban? From Martin Salter's latest piece 'What the Romans...." - "• Lobbied for a ban of the sale of invasive plants such as floating pennywort." So, yes, they did. In fact, I remember emails flying around the regional forums about it and the Colne was highlighted as being a problem area, I pointed out the Wey Navigation.
geoffmaynard on 30/01/2013 16:01:42
avatar
I notice Himalayan Balsam isn't on the list so I guess this is only for species which grow in water rather than alongside watercourses? (Showing my ignorance of aquatic plants here)
Fred Bonney on 30/01/2013 16:05:34
avatar
The difference probably is Geoff that Himalayan Balsam isn't a water plant. It's probably a garden escapey which so happens to find itself in the rivers after people clear their garden and chuck it over their boundary fence!!
Jeff Woodhouse on 30/01/2013 16:14:32
avatar
The difference probably is Geoff that Himalayan Balsam isn't a water plant. HB along with Jappo Knotweed was brought in by the Victorians thinking it was exotic. The EA already have-a-kill-it-at-all costs policy and no one in their right mind buys it from garden centres (or anywhere else) any longer so no need for a ban on it. In fact it may already be banned whereas lots of aquatic plants are imported for the tropical fish market and some daft t**t*s in the past have obviously thought of putting them in a river or maybe a freshwater drain. I do recall a pond we rented having been cleaned out completely and a walker one day planted a miniature lily in it. Getting rid of that one plant was a real pain for in just 1 year it had covered at least 10% of the small pond.
cg74 on 30/01/2013 18:49:50
avatar
From Martin Salter's latest piece 'What the Romans...." - "• Lobbied for a ban of the sale of invasive plants such as floating pennywort." So, yes, they did. In fact, I remember emails flying around the regional forums about it and the Colne was highlighted as being a problem area, I pointed out the Wey Navigation. I only read Martin Salter's article as far as the point where he started wittering about "keyboard warriors" because if that's the way he wants to dismiss criticism, he ain't worth reading! Surely it would be pertinent to have detailed their involvement in bringing about this ban, but like I've said before; the ATr just don't know how to promote themselves...
tiinker on 30/01/2013 18:50:29
avatar
The difference probably is Geoff that Himalayan Balsam isn't a water plant. It's probably a garden escapey which so happens to find itself in the rivers after people clear their garden and chuck it over their boundary fence!! They reckon it is one of the KEW escapees along with Japanese bind weed and Giant hogweed.
Jeff Woodhouse on 30/01/2013 20:09:37
avatar
Surely it would be pertinent to have detailed their involvement in bringing about this ban,Like - "and the ATr has called for such a ban on several occasions in the past four years, in partnership with other organisations such as the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust." Do you mean? Had they done it any louder there would be the usual critics saying it wasn't all their doing, or they're stealing someone else's glory, or something similar. They can't do reet for doin' wrong, as me mam used to say.
cg74 on 30/01/2013 20:49:38
avatar
Like - "and the ATr has called for such a ban on several occasions in the past four years, in partnership with other organisations such as the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust." Do you mean? Had they done it any louder there would be the usual critics saying it wasn't all their doing, or they're stealing someone else's glory, or something similar. They can't do reet for doin' wrong, as me mam used to say. I would apologise for not seeing that quote but as no one else noted that they'd seen the sentence, it obviously wasn't put over forcefully enough.
binka on 30/01/2013 21:12:01
avatar
I would apologise for not seeing that quote but as no one else noted that they'd seen the sentence, it obviously wasn't put over forcefully enough. To be fair Colin by your own admission earlier in the thread you stated that you had dismissed Martin Salter's response by the end of the first paragraph for nothing more than what I can see as Martin fighting back in a manner in which he had every right and justification to do considering the comments within the article which instigated his response. I find the fact that Martin chose to do this very reassuring and far more acceptable to me than someone who will just roll over and take the flak. If you don't read on then you will not know, it's as simple as that but I at least think that anyone has to go in with an open mind and make an evaluation based on all of the information available to them rather than dismissing it early and missing key point/s. As for the above quote it's a bit like saying that no one else made a point of not seeing the sentence (which they haven't) and it doesn't really mean much either way to me.
Jeff Woodhouse on 30/01/2013 22:10:10
avatar
When my now 40 year old son was just a kid playing with trucks and stuff he used to have a saying "He didn't know cos he wasn't there." and I pull his leg about it now, but it does make me think how much people do take in of the facts before they comment or criticise on someone's activity or lack of. All I can say Colin is - get your feet under that forum table and help the fight for better fisheries. Martin's at the next one, you could challenge him over a crab ball!
cg74 on 30/01/2013 22:22:36
avatar
To be fair Colin by your own admission earlier in the thread you stated that you had dismissed Martin Salter's response by the end of the first paragraph for nothing more than what I can see as Martin fighting back in a manner in which he had every right and justification to do considering the comments within the article which instigated his response. I find the fact that Martin chose to do this very reassuring and far more acceptable to me than someone who will just roll over and take the flak. If you don't read on then you will not know, it's as simple as that but I at least think that anyone has to go in with an open mind and make an evaluation based on all of the information available to them rather than dismissing it early and missing key point/s. As for the above quote it's a bit like saying that no one else made a point of not seeing the sentence (which they haven't) and it doesn't really mean much either way to me. Martin showed the only tool in the pro-trust's box of tricks - try to belittle all non-members that question anything. I don't expect you or any other staunchly pro-members to see it objectively. If it's written to be read, surely you shouldn't alienate so many readers, which are also potential (needed?) members? Regards no one seeing and picking up on the line I missed, if it was better written, I (amongst others) wouldn't have missed it.... And I'm certain if others had noticed my error, it would've been pointed out sooner. Take this however you wish... Believe it or not, I read everything with an open mind.
binka on 31/01/2013 13:31:56
avatar
Martin showed the only tool in the pro-trust's box of tricks - try to belittle all non-members that question anything. I don't expect you or any other staunchly pro-members to see it objectively. If it's written to be read, surely you shouldn't alienate so many readers, which are also potential (needed?) members? Regards no one seeing and picking up on the line I missed, if it was better written, I (amongst others) wouldn't have missed it.... And I'm certain if others had noticed my error, it would've been pointed out sooner. Take this however you wish... . Firstly Martin didn't show "the only tool in the pro-trust's box of tricks", he published an extensive list of the Angling Trust's achievements but because you dismissed his response so early you never got as far as to reading them. Secondly, Martin didn't belittle all non-members that questioned anything, he responded to an individual's article. Thirdly, I'm quite capable of viewing even the things I support objectively as are many others. Fourthly, the only people I can see that Martin could possibly alienate by using the phrase "keyboard warriors" are in fact keyboard warriors, I can see no reason why anyone who isn't could possibly take that to mean themselves and feel alienated by it. And last but not least... Believe it or not, I read everything with an open mind. Should that be an open mind on just the bits you did read? :wh
cg74 on 31/01/2013 14:48:40
avatar
Firstly Martin didn't show "the only tool in the pro-trust's box of tricks", he published an extensive list of the Angling Trust's achievements but because you dismissed his response so early you never got as far as to reading them. Secondly, Martin didn't belittle all non-members that questioned anything, he responded to an individual's article. Thirdly, I'm quite capable of viewing even the things I support objectively as are many others. Fourthly, the only people I can see that Martin could possibly alienate by using the phrase "keyboard warriors" are in fact keyboard warriors, I can see no reason why anyone who isn't could possibly take that to mean themselves and feel alienated by it. And last but not least... Should that be an open mind on just the bits you did read? :wh I guess I should've expanded on the "only tool in the ATr box of ticks" and written; the only tool in the ATr box of ticks to deal with internet criticism, is to brand the authors as "keyboard warriors" trolls and the like. Notice I use the word "them" and warriors (plural) because if you go and read the article properly, you'll soon see it isn't just a response to Mark Barratt's article. There is a very good reason for assuming my inclusion in the 'keyboard warrior' group, that being, whenever many pro-ATr supporters struggle to get their point over, or get any criticism, it regulary gets used as a tactic to dismiss contrary opinions.
binka on 31/01/2013 15:34:30
avatar
I only read Martin Salter's article as far as the point where he started wittering about "keyboard warriors" because if that's the way he wants to dismiss criticism, he ain't worth reading! Hang on a minute, something's not ringing right here? Most if not all of my comments so far have been based on and instigated by your quoted reply above where you clearly state that you never got beyond the first paragraph of Martin's article along with your reasoning why, including the particular phrase "keyboard warriors" and now you're referring to the rest of the article which you stated you hadn't read yet you now appear to know what it contains? And... on this basis you appear to be implying that I haven't read the article properly ? :omg: Crucially... Notice I use the word "them" and warriors (plural) because if you go and read the article properly, you'll soon see it isn't just a response to Mark Barratt's article. So you're attempting to associate a comment made at a point where you hadn't read the article with fact that is based within the article that you could only have read at a later time then?
Titus on 31/01/2013 17:05:55
avatar
Can someone explain to me where critical posting finishes and keyboard warriorship starts? Is anyone with an opposing viewpoint automatically a 'keyboard warrior' or do you have to do something extra to gain the title? ---------- Post added at 17:05 ---------- Previous post was at 17:01 ---------- Is parrots feather on the list? That stuff is highly invasive and used to be sold as oxygenating plants for ponds. If it gets into any water it fills it in no time and as it floats the depth is no barrier to it.
Jeff Woodhouse on 31/01/2013 18:30:31
avatar
Can someone explain to me where critical posting finishes and keyboard warriorship starts?Where ancient Anglo-Saxon words start getting used to descibe your enemies. ;) :D Touché - that's French, BTW...
cg74 on 31/01/2013 20:30:51
avatar
Hang on a minute, something's not ringing right here? Most if not all of my comments so far have been based on and instigated by your quoted reply above where you clearly state that you never got beyond the first paragraph of Martin's article along with your reasoning why, including the particular phrase "keyboard warriors" and now you're referring to the rest of the article which you stated you hadn't read yet you now appear to know what it contains? And... on this basis you appear to be implying that I haven't read the article properly ? :omg: Crucially... So you're attempting to associate a comment made at a point where you hadn't read the article with fact that is based within the article that you could only have read at a later time then? Binka, I can't for the life of me understand this post.:confused:
john m h on 31/01/2013 21:38:59
avatar
Anyone who came upon this site by chance would think that cg (the famous) 74 was MS's very own troll, which as we all know is nonsense, isn't it :rolleyes: A few more invasive species HERE I'm sure there will be more to add; is it possible to get humans listed I wonder ;)
bennygesserit on 31/01/2013 21:46:29
avatar
Anyone who came upon this site by chance would think that cg (the famous) 74 was MS's very own troll, which as we all know is nonsense, isn't it :rolleyes: A few more invasive species HERE I'm sure there will be more to add; is it possible to get humans listed I wonder ;) I tell you what lets get rid of everyone who disagrees with you , and Jeff and Geoff and the rest of your clique and you can then have the worlds dullest time agreeing with each other about everything. God forbid anyone has a different opinion from the FM mafia
cg74 on 31/01/2013 22:04:07
avatar
Anyone who came upon this site by chance would think that cg (the famous) 74 was MS's very own troll, which as we all know is nonsense, isn't it :rolleyes: A few more invasive species HERE I'm sure there will be more to add; is it possible to get humans listed I wonder ;) Yes John, if you say so.... Now explain how I'm MS's troll. If you want to see an example of trolling, look no further than Fred Bonney, you'll find him putting his 'likes' up on every post that is in anyway contrary to mine, the sad old git! ---------- Post added at 22:04 ---------- Previous post was at 22:01 ---------- I tell you what lets get rid of everyone who disagrees with you , and Jeff and Geoff and the rest of your clique and you can then have the worlds dullest time agreeing with each other about everything. God forbid anyone has a different opinion from the FM mafia Benny, the sad thing is, the likes of John really can't see it...
john m h on 31/01/2013 22:42:05
avatar
Yes John, if you say so.... Now explain how I'm MS's troll. If you want to see an example of trolling, look no further than Fred Bonney, you'll find him putting his 'likes' up on every post that is in anyway contrary to mine, the sad old git! ---------- Post added at 22:04 ---------- Previous post was at 22:01 ---------- Benny, the sad thing is, the likes of John really can't see it... Now explain how I'm MS's troll Sadly I don't have time to quantify, Colin. As for Fred, Ive always (mostly) found him to be a most agreeable Old Git. You see, one can insult one in a pleasant way :) Benny, the sad thing is, the likes of John really can't see it... The likes of me??? Na, I'm unique :D As for Martin, we have a special bond - we are both Red Flag wavers - and proud of it ;) End of, I don't have time to feed already over inflated ego's.
Jeff Woodhouse on 31/01/2013 22:48:05
avatar
Now explain how I'm MS's troll.We'll see when you meet up with him in just over 4 weeks from now! :D Should I bring gloves or will it be in the old tradition of bare-knuckles? :D :D :D Whatever you do, don't start throwing the crab balls at each other, there's barely enough to go round anyway...
cg74 on 31/01/2013 23:33:12
avatar
Now explain how I'm MS's troll Sadly I don't have time to quantify, Colin. As for Fred, Ive always (mostly) found him to be a most agreeable Old Git. You see, one can insult one in a pleasant way :) Benny, the sad thing is, the likes of John really can't see it... The likes of me??? Na, I'm unique :D As for Martin, we have a special bond - we are both Red Flag wavers - and proud of it ;) End of, I don't have time to feed already over inflated ego's. In other words you can't quantify calling me MS's troll without admitting you were being insulting. I don't think I ever thanked you for getting me on this site... So I'll say it now, thank you. ---------- Post added at 23:33 ---------- Previous post was at 23:23 ---------- We'll see when you meet up with him in just over 4 weeks from now! :D Should I bring gloves or will it be in the old tradition of bare-knuckles? :D :D :D Whatever you do, don't start throwing the crab balls at each other, there's barely enough to go round anyway... Well you've done it now, I'll be labelled as a stalker - Maybe even his official stalker. "Crab balls" Is that code for finest Beluga Caviar??
john m h on 31/01/2013 23:34:46
avatar
In other words you can't quantify calling me MS's troll without admitting you were being insulting. No Colin, I just cant be &rsed.
binka on 01/02/2013 09:45:19
avatar
Binka, I can't for the life of me understand this post.:confused: Put simply... I think that you hanged yourself by referring to content within an article beyond a point that you yourself stated that you had read? The two quotes were, in my opinion, your contradiction.
cg74 on 01/02/2013 11:35:28
avatar
Put simply... I think that you hanged yourself by referring to content within an article beyond a point that you yourself stated that you had read? The two quotes were, in my opinion, your contradiction. 'Hung myself' - I think not! I stated that I had not read beyond MS's slur on all critics via the internet. But I have since read the whole article and came to realise you clearly hadn't read it very well. You wrote this: "So you're attempting to associate a comment made at a point where you hadn't read the article with fact that is based within the article that you could only have read at a later time then?" In response to this (by me): "Notice I use the word "them" and warriors (plural) because if you go and read the article properly, you'll soon see it isn't just a response to Mark Barratt's article." I thought it so blatantly obvious that I had read the whole article, I didn't even think to inform you, as how else could I comment on it in the way I did? I've clearly been attributing you with more credit than is warranted.
binka on 01/02/2013 13:04:03
avatar
'Hung myself' - I think not! I stated that I had not read beyond MS's slur on all critics via the internet. But I have since read the whole article and came to realise you clearly hadn't read it very well. You wrote this: "So you're attempting to associate a comment made at a point where you hadn't read the article with fact that is based within the article that you could only have read at a later time then?" In response to this (by me): "Notice I use the word "them" and warriors (plural) because if you go and read the article properly, you'll soon see it isn't just a response to Mark Barratt's article." I thought it so blatantly obvious that I had read the whole article, I didn't even think to inform you, as how else could I comment on it in the way I did? I've clearly been attributing you with more credit than is warranted. Finally, thank you. That is the answer I had anticipated and have been waiting for from the original post which you couldn't understand, and which leads me to the next point. So a case of you moving the goal posts then? I address a point with you, namely that you by your own admission had not bothered to read fully the post in question before making your comment which in turn led to my comments in respect of and then you go on to debate after you had read the whole post which kind of moves things on from the original context doesn't it? Eg. overlooking the original point I was making, and not things within the wider article which you later start referring to after you had read it? I think that if you haven't hanged yourself from diving in without the full facts then you have by going on to ramble on about the wider article which I have made no reference to, by the way, since you in fact began referring to it so I can't really see what other point we are debating other than the one which you appear to me to be so keen to get away from? You are of course free to add on to your inevitable reply more comment consistent with the last in your post above, I will decline responding to this as I read things like that as personally aimed and I believe by not doing so I am in fact saying rather much more than if I had.
bennygesserit on 01/02/2013 13:15:18
avatar
Finally, thank you. That is the answer I had anticipated and have been waiting for from the original post which you couldn't understand, and which leads me to the next point. So a case of you moving the goal posts then? I address a point with you, namely that you by your own admission had not bothered to read fully the post in question before making your comment which in turn led to my comments in respect of and then you go on to debate after you had read the whole post which kind of moves things on from the original context doesn't it? Eg. overlooking the original point I was making, and not things within the wider article which you later start referring to after you had read it? I think that if you haven't hanged yourself from diving in without the full facts then you have by going on to ramble on about the wider article which I have made no reference to, by the way, since you in fact began referring to it so I can't really see what other point we are debating other than the one which you appear to me to be so keen to get away from? You are of course free to add on to your inevitable reply more comment consistent with the last in your post above, I will decline responding to this as I read things like that as personally aimed and I believe by not doing so I am in fact saying rather much more than if I had. Lads - time to go fishing I think , or at least go outside and try and kick yourself in the back of your own head.
binka on 01/02/2013 13:20:50
avatar
Lads - time to go fishing I think , or at least go outside and try and kick yourself in the back of your own head. Thanks fella, I think you're right. In John's own words... No Colin, I just cant be &rsed.
geoffmaynard on 01/02/2013 14:12:47
avatar
I tell you what lets get rid of everyone who disagrees with you , and Jeff and Geoff and the rest of your clique and you can then have the worlds dullest time agreeing with each other about everything. God forbid anyone has a different opinion from the FM mafia This is interesting. So you think I'm part of a clique? I think I've argued with just about everyone in it then! :)
Jeff Woodhouse on 01/02/2013 14:24:30
avatar
Jeff and Geoff and the rest of your clique and you can then have the worlds dullest time agreeing with each other about everything. Don't you dare link me with that idiot above! ↑↑↑ I will have nothing to do with him whatsoever... The fact that we agree on most things is purely coincidental. ;) :D "Crab balls" Is that code for finest Beluga Caviar?? No class!!! :) Crabs have balls don't they or at least the male ones do, or should have... You will enjoy them, if they put them on.
cg74 on 01/02/2013 17:14:57
avatar
Finally, thank you. That is the answer I had anticipated and have been waiting for from the original post which you couldn't understand, and which leads me to the next point. 1, So a case of you moving the goal posts then? 2, I address a point with you, namely that you by your own admission had not bothered to read fully the post in question before making your comment which in turn led to my comments in respect of and then you go on to debate after you had read the whole post which kind of moves things on from the original context doesn't it? 3, Eg. overlooking the original point I was making, and not things within the wider article which you later start referring to after you had read it? 4, I think that if you haven't hanged yourself from diving in without the full facts then you have by going on to ramble on about the wider article which I have made no reference to, by the way, since you in fact began referring to it so I can't really see what other point we are debating other than the one which you appear to me to be so keen to get away from? 5, You are of course free to add on to your inevitable reply more comment consistent with the last in your post above, I will decline responding to this as I read things like that as personally aimed and I believe by not doing so I am in fact saying rather much more than if I had. 1, No moving of goal posts. More like you've gone to the wrong pitch. 2, Here's said post: I only read Martin Salter's article as far as the point where he started wittering about "keyboard warriors" because if that's the way he wants to dismiss criticism, he ain't worth reading! Surely it would be pertinent to have detailed their involvement in bringing about this ban, but like I've said before; the ATr just don't know how to promote themselves... I fail to see the point you're making. The top paragraph is in answer to MS's "What have the Romans ever done for us" article and my opinion is exactly the same now (after reading it in its entirety) as it was when I'd only partially read it. The bottom paragraph is an answer to fact many myself included had failed to notice this written in the "Invasive Plant Species" article; "the ATr has called for such a ban on several occasions in the past four years" 3, "overlooking the original point I was making, and not things within the wider article which you later start referring to after you had read it?" It's a shame you've opted out, as I'm curious to know what things you're referring to? 4, Rather like above - I can't see where I've commented on anything I hadn't read, or commented on something I read without it being obvious that I had done so. 5, Ah the good old opt out card - saves answering awkward questions; just like John last night... Might be worth noting that the article for this thread does not mention Martin Salter at all.
binka on 01/02/2013 17:55:45
avatar
5, Ah the good old opt out card - saves answering awkward questions; just like John last night... If you're fool enough to believe that in either case then i'm game enough to let you. As for the rest of it i'm not even going to indulge you Horse, stable door... Have a good weekend Colin, enjoy your fishing :)


Add a comment

  • Email to a friend Email to a friend
  • Print version Print version
  • Plain text Plain text

Tagged as:

angling trust, Richard Benyon, Non native species

Follow FishingMagic!