Do Big Clubs Own to Many Waters

[thecrow]

During the last couple of years I have had the chance to join 2 large and financially powerful clubs, one was out of reach of my pocket at the time (still is ) the other was to far to travel to be "interviewed". Why anglers need to be interviewed to join clubs I have no idea other than it must give those that do the interviewing some sort of power trip.

Some of the waters that these 2 clubs own hardly ever see an angler and I think that the clubs buy waters up in order to add to their collection. Some are waters that I used to fish but no longer can, how many may have left the sport because of this I wonder?

Why do they do it is it just because they can?

 

[greenie62]

.......Why do they do it is it just because they can?

Hey Graham,
Careful - some on here may think you're taking the P**S!

Our club (Salford Friendly AS) is a very small club - in terms of Finances - but has over 2000 members - free membership helps explain some of that - and a number of waters (lakes and rivers) which are 'leased' - foc - on a stewardship basis.

It's a different model of membership to most clubs - but the main purpose is to get youngsters/oldsters into fishing and provide the facilities with which to continue this through waters and fisheries management.

 

[Molehill]

The appeal of some big clubs to anglers like myself, is exactly what you say about their waters, we "hardly ever see an angler". And those of us that are there don't want to be seen
Perhaps small clubs are like that as well, I have no idea but guess not from your comment. But certainly with a membership of over 8000 being able to toddle off to a lake or river and expect to have the place to oneself is a joy worth paying for.

Plus the pure range of fishing catered for, coarse, salmon, trout, still or running waters and over a large lump of England & Wales. If we fancy a weekend or holiday away somewhere, we can choose a cottage or B&B or take the camper van and still find some club water nearby. A good start.

 

[thecrow]

It's a different model of membership to most clubs - but the main purpose is to get youngsters/oldsters into fishing and provide the facilities with which to continue this through waters and fisheries management.

Imo Mike its how a club should be, its putting back into the sport although one of the clubs I could have joined finances permitting do have a very good junior section.

 

[sam vimes]

I don't have a particular issue with the big clubs buying or leasing whatever they like. The exceptions are when they take on waters big distances from their heartlands, which barely anyone of their membership would ever bother to fish. If such a club got control of a water local to me, I'd not be joining at great expense for that one water when the rest of their waters are 50+ miles away. Might be different if the membership fee was sub £50, but the really big clubs rarely are that cheap.

There's a couple of big clubs, that are remote from me, that I'd love to join, despite a fairly high price and seemingly masonic joining rituals. However, the reality is that both are simply too far away to be a realistic proposition.

 

[thecrow]

hardly ever see an angler".

I can find space to my self without joining a large club but it doesn't answer the question of why they collect waters that don't get fished, I doubt they collect them so that the odd angler can have them to themselves, the very fact that you say its a reason for joining shows that they don't need to have that water on their list to attract members.

From the numbers of members you quote it sounds as if the club is one I could have joined, their waiting list couldn't have been what is put about in angling circles as I could have joined quite quickly after applying.

Why do they feel the need to "interview" prospective members?

 

[thecrow]

high price and seemingly masonic joining rituals

Yes that was one of them Chris the other has waters all over the place far and wide, imo all that does is take fishing away from locals that cant afford their joining fees.

 

[thecrow]

Careful - some on here may think you're taking the P**S!

Now would I ever do that Mike

 

[greenie62]

..... The exceptions are when they take on waters big distances from their heartlands, which barely anyone of their membership would ever bother to fish. .....

Hardly a case of "local waters - for local anglers" - to paraphrase the motto of Royston Vasey AS! mg:

 

[mikench]

I am a member of 2 clubs now with one being a large one and I am not taking the P**s! I have too much choice and will be unlikely to use even 10% of what is available . However I enjoy the choice, the Masonic rituals anecdotally referred to didn't exist and I have no complaints at all! Life is too short to mess about so when offered I accepted!

My other club has a particular venue on the card which I really like and as this is a day ticket water, my membership fee is covered by the number of visits to this one water alone! It also has several lengths of a very good small river which I intend to try this week! If my fees contribute to more and better waters I am content!

 

[nottskev]

I grew up fishing the town stretches of the River Dee in Chester. A few years ago, a mega-club 35 miles away took over those stretches and, because they don't do day tickets and have a two -year waiting list for (not cheap) membership, local anglers were prevented from accessing the river on their doorstep. A great example of what we get when everything is a commodity in a market. I believe the Council, who sold the rights, have since negotiated access for locals. Someone on FM may know the details - I haven't lived there for 13 years.

 

[Artie]

There are some very interesting points raised, Large clubs did not start out with many waters together with large membership usually it’s a group of friends initially renting a water for themselves as more anglers joined them so the need for more waters, more waters attracted more anglers and so on. The reason for the expansion from their base was a case of insufficient local waters to fill demand and so the expansion continued.

 

[sam vimes]

I grew up fishing the town stretches of the River Dee in Chester. A few years ago, a mega-club 35 miles away took over those stretches and, because they don't do day tickets and have a two -year waiting list for (not cheap) membership, local anglers were prevented from accessing the river on their doorstep. A great example of what we get when everything is a commodity in a market. I believe the Council, who sold the rights, have since negotiated access for locals. Someone on FM may know the details - I haven't lived there for 13 years.

I've no knowledge of the specifics on this one, though I've heard unsubstantiated mutterings. I too am familiar with the Dee in Chester having lived nearby for a couple of years. However, I'd urge caution before you take a particular stance based on appearances and gossip. For a start, things don't ring entirely true on this one. If a council had sold the fishing rights, they could not impose conditions on the purchaser after the event.

I know of similar situations where councils have been desperate for a club to take on their waters. Complaints from local residents about anti-social behaviour, littering, poaching etc, an inability to police their water, or an inability to pay the appropriate public liability insurance, can all see councils keen to divest themselves of responsibility. In some cases, small local clubs just don't have the wherewithal to take on such water effectively and turn down the opportunity to do so. The council can end up looking to any local(ish) club that might have enough clout, cash and members to police it properly. Sometimes what appears to be an avaricious club going hell for leather to take over every bit of water possible, isn't quite as it first seems.

 

[103841]

Hey Graham,
Careful - some on here may think you're taking the P**S!

Our club (Salford Friendly AS) is a very small club - in terms of Finances - but has over 2000 members - free membership helps explain some of that - and a number of waters (lakes and rivers) which are 'leased' - foc - on a stewardship basis.

It's a different model of membership to most clubs - but the main purpose is to get youngsters/oldsters into fishing and provide the facilities with which to continue this through waters and fisheries management.

Without membership fees how does your club finance various things? Admin expenses, restocking etc.

 

[steve2]

Most angling clubs are cheap to join when worked out over year. What you see as cheap depends on what you are prepared to pay for your fishing. If you pay £200 for a rod a £100 to join a club to be able to use it is not in my eyes excessive.
There are some carp lakes near me charging £500 plus a season with waiting lists.

 

[nottskev]

I've no knowledge of the specifics on this one, though I've heard unsubstantiated mutterings. I too am familiar with the Dee in Chester having lived nearby for a couple of years. However, I'd urge caution before you take a particular stance based on appearances and gossip. For a start, things don't ring entirely true on this one. If a council had sold the fishing rights, they could not impose conditions on the purchaser after the event.

I know of similar situations where councils have been desperate for a club to take on their waters. Complaints from local residents about anti-social behaviour, littering, poaching etc, an inability to police their water, or an inability to pay the appropriate public liability insurance, can all see councils keen to divest themselves of responsibility. In some cases, small local clubs just don't have the wherewithal to take on such water effectively and turn down the opportunity to do so. The council can end up looking to any local(ish) club that might have enough clout, cash and members to police it properly. Sometimes what appears to be an avaricious club going hell for leather to take over every bit of water possible, isn't quite as it first seems.[/QUOTE

You can see details of the resolution of the anomaly of Cestrians paying a mega-club from Macclesfield for the privilege of fishing the river in their city in this report from the local paper.

Anglers get cut-price fishing deal - Chester Chronicle

I lived in Chester for a total of 32 years, in 3 different blocks of time. I can honestly say I never heard of any issues or problems that might justify such a perverse arrangement. The stretches involved are quiet, away from residential areas and attracted, such was the Dee, relatively few visitors. The Dee has been, however, an improving river with good prospects for the future. Until shown otherwise, I'll tend to believe, along with many residents, that the sale of fishing rights out of the area reflected some ill-thought-out opportunism on either side, rectified in the teeth of protests.

 

[nottskev]

Hey Graham,
Careful - some on here may think you're taking the P**S!

Our club (Salford Friendly AS) is a very small club - in terms of Finances - but has over 2000 members - free membership helps explain some of that - and a number of waters (lakes and rivers) which are 'leased' - foc - on a stewardship basis.

It's a different model of membership to most clubs - but the main purpose is to get youngsters/oldsters into fishing and provide the facilities with which to continue this through waters and fisheries management.

Hello Greenie, It's a small world - I lived in Salford (Langworthy Road) between 1984 and 1988, and I fished a few local waters. Some scarey bits of the Bridgie in town and at the back of Old Trafford. A weird orange-coloured section at Monton. A lake in Drinkwater Park. It all comes back....
I've seen your website, and the recovery in the local rivers is fantastic. We weren't fishing them when I lived there! Good luck to you and your club.

 

[sam vimes]

You can see details of the resolution of the anomaly of Cestrians paying a mega-club from Macclesfield for the privilege of fishing the river in their city in this report from the local paper.

Anglers get cut-price fishing deal - Chester Chronicle

I lived in Chester for a total of 32 years, in 3 different blocks of time. I can honestly say I never heard of any issues or problems that might justify such a perverse arrangement. The stretches involved are quiet, away from residential areas and attracted, such was the Dee, relatively few visitors. The Dee has been, however, an improving river with good prospects for the future. Until shown otherwise, I'll tend to believe, along with many residents, that the sale of fishing rights out of the area reflected some ill-thought-out opportunism on either side, rectified in the teeth of protests.

It also quite clearly intimates that the council have leased the water to PAAS. Fishing rights aren't sold for finite time periods, that's a lease. Had the rights been sold, no imposition to provide residents tickets could have been made on PAAS after the sale had taken place.

As I said in the original post, there are many reasons as to why the fishing might have been leased to the particular club concerned. Focussing on just one of the possible reasons I proffered is pointless. I don't know what the truth is, I just gave three or four potential reasons. I don't know for sure what the reasons are, nor do I really care. However, I'll still suggest that it may not be as black and white as you, or others, want to believe. You've no idea whether the council offered a lease to every other local club in the area and they refused to take it on. If anyone is really bothered, the council's decisions are accountable. A well worded freedom of information request should get you the truth.

Please don't get the idea that I'm defending PAAS, or the council. I'm simply a little more aware than many of the machinations of local councils when it comes to fishing rights. It's very easy to believe that PAAS are the big bad wolf in these circumstances. I have a fairly good idea that all may not be as it seems.

 

[Molehill]

From the numbers of members you quote it sounds as if the club is one I could have joined, their waiting list couldn't have been what is put about in angling circles as I could have joined quite quickly after applying.

Why do they feel the need to "interview" prospective members?

A friend of mine got in recent!ly after 2 year wait and another friend is into year 2 of waiting - so no quick entry (unless you are a junior).

Not sure what rumours go around the grapevine, but no interview. Members are asked to attend an introductory welcome evening (I never did as I was unable to, no problem) and have rules, regs and everything explained, also questions. As many members seem incapable of reading simple rules or behaving like responsible anglers this does no harm. There is a call for more stringent entry for some members, because of the idiot brigade of anglers that give us all a bad name.

 

[thecrow]

I am a member of 2 clubs now with one being a large one and I am not taking the P**s! I have too much choice and will be unlikely to use even 10% of what is available . However I enjoy the choice, the Masonic rituals anecdotally referred to didn't exist and I have no complaints at all! Life is too short to mess about so when offered I accepted!

That's the other one, the one with the not so long waiting list

I have my name down for a club I used to belong to I am 600th out of 813, they have some very good waters the price? £95 for new members of my age £50 per season thereafter. The numbers quoted for the waiting list are genuine with it being open to all to view including names and date of application.

I dont think that any of the 2 large clubs have such a long waiting list.