Here we go again!

[John Hepworth]

Just how big a percentage of the total number of coarse anglers is this figure of AT readers who would scrap the close season, and how many anglers DO NOT take the AT? Of all the anglers who I meet on a regular basis, only one actually buys a copy. At one time the paper would have sold out the same / next day - now they are removed from the shelves the Tuesday morning to make room for that days publication, and that is from a total of 5 copies that my local shop takes!
Angling Times also say the NFA are calling for a change, again who does the NFA actually represent in this 21st century. Apart from Matthew Black and his cohorts, not many I would suggest.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

John, there are lies, damn lies and then statistics derived from so called "polls"

I have often wondered just who these pollsters actually ask the question to?
Judging by the ever growing sections on Carp related matters I am surprised that they found any of their readers who had fished a river in the last 5 years.

Also, out of pure interest I would love to know how many of the "anglers" who said they would like to see the close season abolished actually fish the rivers?
Or, are these poeple so fed up with fishing their dust holes that were once nice looking stillwaters now out to replicate these conditions on the rivers!

 

[Graham Whatmore]

Thats a very cynical outlook Peter. A poll amongst anglers should give you a definitive answer providing you take a big enough sample. If you start to differentiate between who fishes what, and when, you would need a different poll for for every category, not practical.

People who study polls will tell you that the percentages remain the same regardless of the quantity polled. I can't say I fully understand, or perhaps I'm not willing to accept, this principle but the facts remain.

The point is that although every angler doesn't read the Angling Times, me included, its still a fair representation of anglers, as will the poll on this site be

 

[Wolfman Woody]

The polls that don't uncover the truth are those where there is a voluntary phone-in.

EG: Do you think we aught to bring back bear baiting? Phone 08708708708708 Yes and 099765464363 No

Now I will wager there will always be a tremendous majority for bringing back bear baiting. Not because the majority of people would want it brought back, but simply because those who are happy with the status quo will not bother to vote. It's only those who want change that vote.

I'm inclined to agree in principal with the AT poll, but I bet the real figure is around 56% in favour of scrapping it. They probably looked along the river banks in April for some anglers' views. )

 

[Baz]

Keep the closed season and possibly change the dates.
A water keeper on each section of river who is familiar with his part of river could say if it was fit to fish or not, is possibly another way.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Graham,

My cynicism is borne of experience particularly where "polls" are concerned.
Some years ago I took a consultancy assignment for a large Company who specialise in polls.

If you saw the amount of word manipulation based on an enormous database of poll results that is utilised to compose the questions, then maybe you too might become a little more cynical on this subject.

Then there are the "target" voters who, believe me, are very carefully selected these days based on their socio-economic grouping, their purchasing habits, their choice of holiday locations and their Internet surfing history.
(Surprise, surprise ever heard of Spyware?)

Given sufficient time these people can construct a poll to "prove" or "disprove" just about any theorem you chose!

If you want (need) to collate accurate statistics from a poll exercise then you should be asking the right people, the right questions framed in an undiluted and coherant manner.
So, I would have to disagree that such a poll would be impractical. On the contrary, it may be the only method which would deliver an accurate opinion.

 

[Bryan Baron 2]

Polls can always be maniulated to say what you want. You only have to look at the political parties around election time.

On the subject i agree with Baz the dates need reviewing. the fish down south in there spring feed river will not breed at the same time in the norths rain feed river.

 

[Graham Whatmore]

Peter, I have no illusions as to how and why statistics/polls can be manipulated to prove a point and I totally agree with you on that subject.

Do you think Angling Times would use those sort of people or would they just do a head count based on replies? Much the same as the poll running on this site in fact.

Maybe I'm too naiave or too trusting, could well be.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Graham,

I have no idea as to how AT obtained their data, however Richard Lee does read and contribute here on occasion so maybe he can answer.

One of the factors that always amazes me is the level of inertia displayed within our ranks.

Take for example the "poll" on these pages.

Now, we have had around 40 replies?

Given that this site receives thousands of hits per day what does that tell us about the degree of lethargy being shown?

In fact I personally know at least 5 other anglers who feel the same as I do regarding the close season, all experienced and established angler who have yet to cast a vote.

 

[Nigel Connor(ACA ,SAA)]

Peter - i've voted now!

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Nigel,
You are a scholar and a gentleman Sir :-0