Side issue on this thread .... The landowner as well as a doubling of income will benefit as most of the game lads won't treat his land as a dumping ground as currently happens. I'm not a game angler and not a member of WAA so it doesn't bother me what happens with the water but from the times I've seen the stretch and from what I hear from WAA members the place was left in a right state on numerous occasions .... this seems to happens to waters controlled by clubs that have a very open membership policy (apply and get your card next day ) ie Balderstone and the water controlled by Wigan.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
As some of you will be aware I am Waters Secretary for Ribchester & District AC (RADAC) and I hope you will all appreciate I am not prepared to discuss here exact details of our stretches and leases. However I do want to say that I can fully sympathise with Baz's point of view as we have had some similar situations over the years. Our club is slightly more game than coarse in terms of the members' expressed interests so I don't see that dividing line as a problem. Indeed IMHO the river from Ribchester downstream is now a superb mixed fishery. I do not feel qualified to comment on the (many,many) miles of water upstream of the village.
A recent "problem" is the size of the salmon catch in 2004. I certainly cannot recall a better return for the salmon anglers and I think the riparian owners still value their fishing in these terms ie good salmon catches in 2004 have bumped up rents now. Also some farmers are tennants and their landlords look at the money angle first and foremost.
Quite possibly we are the victims of our own success and in an ideal world the Clubs/Associations would have a code of conduct as regards bidding for stretches.
A recent "problem" is the size of the salmon catch in 2004. I certainly cannot recall a better return for the salmon anglers and I think the riparian owners still value their fishing in these terms ie good salmon catches in 2004 have bumped up rents now. Also some farmers are tennants and their landlords look at the money angle first and foremost.
Quite possibly we are the victims of our own success and in an ideal world the Clubs/Associations would have a code of conduct as regards bidding for stretches.
B
BAZ (Angel of the North)
Guest
Clubs and Associations do have a code of conduct Fred, in that no other club or Association shall bid against the existing leaseholder when the lease is up for renewal.
J
jason fisher
Guest
Radac aint that the club that you have to apply now for some chance of getting a ticket in the next milennium
Jonathan Whitham
New member
- Joined
- May 17, 2004
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
As pointed out earlier, whilst skullduggery may have been at work here the reality is that economics are primarily to blame. The general angling public need to realise that prices are increasing and that for the majority the amount they spend on permits is far less than what they spend on acquiring top fishing rights. What is the priority here, the fishing or the tackle? Nobody likes to see prices increase but what price would you rather pay - dearer fishing or no fishing? Clubs need to do market research and find out the true value of their stretches. They then need to factor this into the cost of permits and ensure that they keep their landowners happy. On the anglers side, looking after the water is of paramount importance. Flouting rules, noise, litter etc. will cost you dear! Good fishing costs and, as seen here, there are people out there willing to pay for it. Surely the same could be said for commercial fisheries...
B
BAZ (Angel of the North)
Guest
Sorry Jonathan.
No amount of money would have secured the lease. You are wrong mate.
No amount of money would have secured the lease. You are wrong mate.
P
Phil Hackett Manchester Granitewith Pride
Guest
Jonathan
"whilst skullduggery may have been at work here"
There is no ifs or buts about it, it was!
CAA went behind the back of a club for a water than the leasing club had no intentions of letting go and did a deal with the owner who they also lease another length off in Sept. of last year.
CAA are a game club, had they been a mixed club, they'd have been accountable under the Code of Conduct of the NFA had they been members.
That code says you don't put in bids for waters if the controlling club is not giving up that water.
Only when a water is on the open market does its members make bids for it. The highest bidder normally securing the lease on it.
That, neither the club nor I have a problem with!
What goes around comes around, and it might just come around a lot sooner than CAA think on one of its other waters.
One final point for now on this despicable act, I also think they?ve lease a pig in a poke length, as the whole length is not a natural salmon holding area. The only lies there are, which ain?t many, are on the far side of the river, which is owned by someone else. As an angler under law, is only allowed to fish up to halfway across a river, if they don?t own or lease the other bank. He/she is technically poaching on someone else riverbed.
Oh dear and the Ribble Way overlooks the length, and I like waking during the spring and after the coarse season shuts :0)
"whilst skullduggery may have been at work here"
There is no ifs or buts about it, it was!
CAA went behind the back of a club for a water than the leasing club had no intentions of letting go and did a deal with the owner who they also lease another length off in Sept. of last year.
CAA are a game club, had they been a mixed club, they'd have been accountable under the Code of Conduct of the NFA had they been members.
That code says you don't put in bids for waters if the controlling club is not giving up that water.
Only when a water is on the open market does its members make bids for it. The highest bidder normally securing the lease on it.
That, neither the club nor I have a problem with!
What goes around comes around, and it might just come around a lot sooner than CAA think on one of its other waters.
One final point for now on this despicable act, I also think they?ve lease a pig in a poke length, as the whole length is not a natural salmon holding area. The only lies there are, which ain?t many, are on the far side of the river, which is owned by someone else. As an angler under law, is only allowed to fish up to halfway across a river, if they don?t own or lease the other bank. He/she is technically poaching on someone else riverbed.
Oh dear and the Ribble Way overlooks the length, and I like waking during the spring and after the coarse season shuts :0)
Jonathan Whitham
New member
- Joined
- May 17, 2004
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
The point I was trying to make is that we need to look ahead. Whilst this may not have helped in this particular case I do not think we can rest on our laurels. Just as in business "competitor anlysis" is required to check out what is happening with other rents etc. After all, for landowners fishing is now becoming business, not just pleasure. Apologies if I wasn't clear.