Just too many rules.

What are the daftest fishery rules you have ever come across?

I'm a member of a syndicate which has two rules. Rule 1 pay your fees on time and rule two don't be a ****. It works perfectly and everyone respects each other and the fishery. You won't find a discarded fag end or a piece of line anywhere. If you treat people like responsible adults then generally speaking they tend to act like responsible adults.

on the other hand some clubs do have a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater and have rules for the sake of rules. Typical of this attitude is the commonly found rule which says,

"No tins allowed on the fishery".

If you must legislate for litter then all which is needed is a rule saying,

"The occupant of a swim is responsible for all litter in that swim".

The responsible anglers will always clear their swim of any rubbish whether it is theirs or not, but, the irresponsible people will always leave it, regardless of the rules.
The only person the no tins rule punishes is the chap who likes to carry a couple of change baits, i.e. a tin of corn or luncheon meat with him but will not necessarily use them.

Also how far do you take the no tins rule? What about my tobacco tin or my diabetic mates emergency can of coke? Would he be ok if he carried a glass bottle of coke?

A rule stating no glass is perfectly logical as an accidental breakage could leave the odd shard behind and be a cut hazard, but tins? Come on, it is a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

That of course is only one, I could get a few of my old books out and find dozens of them and then when you start adding in bait and tackle restriction.............I going to stop now, I can feel my blood pressure rising...........

The no tins rule stops people leaving empty tin that cut be a cut hazzard

I think that the "no tins allowed" is perfectly reasonable and sensible, and it takes minutes to decant the tin's contents into a bait box.

It makes no difference and personally I find it easier to prepare different baits at home rather than on the bank; I will always have luncheon meat as well as a couple of different flavored corns in my bait bag, and hemp is decanted into bait boxes as well.

Prior to the rule (circa 2008) there would always be tins left on the club lakes but since then we rarely if ever now see an empty tin.
We had complaints from one of the farmers on our syndicate stretch as well over lambs getting cuts from the tins. Rather than argue the point and run the risk of losing the venue, we happily complied with his request.

Any measure, within logical reason, that prevents the leaving of litter has to be a good idea.

Now, I am a type 2 diabetic, insulin dependent, so am at risk of suffering a hypoglycemic shock at any time.
My emergency "can" of coke is decanted into a small Aladdin flask, a bit larger than a hip flask. So no problems there in all honesty.

You are actually missing the point, if you think it through empty tins are covered by the litter rule, litter includes tins so a rule banning tins specifically is redundant and only causes inconvenience and waste.
The people who would leave a tin behind would also leave a bag behind which they may have decanted the bait into, this would cause a choke hazard to livestock which is probably more real than a possible cut hazard from a discarded tin.
A plastic sandwich bag will also last longer in the environment than a tin, a discarded tin will be nothing but a rust stain in 50 years time, however, a sandwich bag will be there for hundreds of years.

I can`t see the problem, its a sensible rule. I`ve cleared up for other people on numerous occasions, tins, bottles....clearing up didn't bother me a jot, its the folk, with that attitude, that leave the rubbish behind, who do..
PS.... being a syndicate, I would think also attracts a more caring angler, so more considerate than a open day water?

Adrian,

I don't think that the "no tins on the fishery" misses the point with regard to litter but in fact it reinforces the rule inasmuch as restricting what can and cannot be taken onto a fishery in the first place.

Litter, particularly dangerous litter such as glass and tins should be restricted in my opinion, I do however take your point regarding cellophane packaging being a possible choke hazard.
Personally I will typically make-up my ground baits/spod mixes at home and transport in buckets, the same goes for boilies, but hooker pellets are again placed in small bait boxes.

For many years the litter problem has beset angling across the wide range of disciplines and never in a positive way either.

So, when it comes to litter I am all in favor of however many rules we need to solve the problem for good . . . . . . . .

Its just such a shame that we cant all behave like adults and do basic things like take our litter with us. Its the actions of the few that have implications on the majority, and unfortunately it will always be that way.

I have been told by a couple of committee members of local clubs that it is to stop people taking cans of beer onto fisheries, I think this could be the real reason for banning tins and the rest is a red herring.

Hidden litter is a bigger threat to fisheries, I bought 8 Drennan maggot feeders for a pound at a boot-sale the other day which had obviously been recovered from a river, it turned out the bloke as well as being a barbel angler was a metal detector enthusiast and worked the shallows round Bridgnorth, he claimed to have over 10,000 leads and feeders collected over 6 years, quite a haul. During the course of the conversation he told me about the miles of line he also collected and reckoned that a small snag at the beginning of the season would soon become festooned with miles of line and turn into a real tackle grabbing monster. Something to think about next time you pull for a break.

A lot of club rules are not put in place by the club, but by the owner of the water/river which the club rent it from so they either abide by those rules or get kicked off the water.
People flaunting the rules can often lead to a club loosing the fishing rights spoiling it for all the other members.

Back to the daft rules thread...As a kid I used to haunt the Chase at Dagenham.
The club (Whiteheart I think) banned hemp " 'cos it drugged the fish" the bailiff said. What a ****.

"All bream must be returned." Most stupid rule I ever saw.

No litter should suffice - whether it is bottles, bags, tins, fag ends or whatever. If the rule indicates zero tolerance to litter - as in the angler is responsible for any seen in his swim whether or not it was there when he arrived - that should cover it. Problem is enforcing the rule - need bailiff or other members to act.

The worst case i ever saw was 2 polish anglers and their mate at a day ticket pit near Cambridge. After leaving they had left empty Tesco carrier bags, sandwich cartons, beer cans, vodka bottles and fishing line (with a seriously large hook, perhaps a 2/0 attached to one length) strewn amongst the nettles by the platform they had been fishing from.

I had stopped fishing on that lake earlier and moved to another after one of them decided to go swimming at 7am in the morning - he was completely drunk after an all nighter. I later heard that they left around mid-day after a bailiff got wind they had also killed some fish and an English angler fished the swim for a few hours later on, but had left their litter in the nettles. I cleared it with a mate as we passed the swim on our way to the car in late afternoon. But in my opinion the two poles who left the litter and the other angler who fished after them should all have been banned.

This was in a country park where angling will simply get banned if the public notices litter from anglers.

Conversely (in relation to "daft" rules)...

Having thought about this quite hard I'm surprised that no one has posted anything in relation to keepnets and in my opinion not enough focus is put on them when defining club rules in general and in relation to the time that fish are retained, instead concentrating on the "no carp to be retained in keepnets unless in a match" rule.

(Like there's some sort of evidence available to suggest that there's good reason on a fish welfare basis yet they don't suffer in a match situation!).

I overheard a conversation in a local tackle shop the other day where a matchman was bemoaning the fact that he had been deducted points for what he had put, both in terms of weight and species, into certain keepnets.

This in my mind has to be a positive thing from a point of fish welfare and the amount of anglers who I see that still retain fish for well over five or six hours is staggering and totally unnecessary in my opinion.

I actually once emptied someone's keepnet (they got off light, I was gonna cut off the end ring and throw it back out) who had been night fishing on the river when they went to the pub at midday!

I'm not anti-keepnet, quite the contrary when fishing for silvers but with a bit of common sense thrown in for good measure.

The "no bloodworm or joker" rules back in the match fishing days always seemed a bit unnecessary. If they gave an unfair advantage then so what? no different to having better equipment or access to some other advantage - and you cant legislate for them all.

I vaguely remember a silly rule fishing at Center Parcs when on holiday once - it was something like "no natural baits" and it gave the impression i couldnt use maggots, worms etc. I simply ignored it as it was too poorly defined. Is sweetcorn a natural bait or processed foodstuff?

john step said:

Back to the daft rules thread...As a kid I used to haunt the Chase at Dagenham.
The club (Whiteheart I think) banned hemp " 'cos it drugged the fish" the bailiff said. What a ****.

Click to expand...

That was the standard thinking in the 60's. That was a common ban.
Just as bad today imo is the 'no trout pellet' ban - a bait which melts and is eaten by every living creature in the water. It's actually over-use of bait which causes problems. I rememebr when Fox Pool was drained and they found actual bars comprised of mounds of solidified old boilies

geoffmaynard said:

That was the standard thinking in the 60's. That was a common ban.
Just as bad today imo is the 'no trout pellet' ban - a bait which melts and is eaten by every living creature in the water. It's actually over-use of bait which causes problems. I rememebr when Fox Pool was drained and they found actual bars comprised of mounds of solidified old boilies

Click to expand...

Jeeez...is that actually true geoff...about the mounds of old boilies ? You would think that with so much decay in the water it would have de-oxygenated the water and killed off all the fish well befor it got to that stage.

NP "All bream must be returned" hoi!! and why not!!!!!

geoffmaynard said:

That was the standard thinking in the 60's. That was a common ban.
Just as bad today imo is the 'no trout pellet' ban - a bait which melts and is eaten by every living creature in the water. It's actually over-use of bait which causes problems. I rememebr when Fox Pool was drained and they found actual bars comprised of mounds of solidified old boilies

Click to expand...

I was always led to believe that uneaten boilies would eventually float to the top and be picked off by the tufties.

Would be interested in the science behind either theory.

binka said:

Conversely (in relation to "daft" rules)...

Having thought about this quite hard I'm surprised that no one has posted anything in relation to keepnets and in my opinion not enough focus is put on them when defining club rules in general and in relation to the time that fish are retained, instead concentrating on the "no carp to be retained in keepnets unless in a match" rule.

(Like there's some sort of evidence available to suggest that there's good reason on a fish welfare basis yet they don't suffer in a match situation!).

I overheard a conversation in a local tackle shop the other day where a matchman was bemoaning the fact that he had been deducted points for what he had put, both in terms of weight and species, into certain keepnets.

This in my mind has to be a positive thing from a point of fish welfare and the amount of anglers who I see that still retain fish for well over five or six hours is staggering and totally unnecessary in my opinion.

I actually once emptied someone's keepnet (they got off light, I was gonna cut off the end ring and throw it back out) who had been night fishing on the river when they went to the pub at midday!

I'm not anti-keepnet, quite the contrary when fishing for silvers but with a bit of common sense thrown in for good measure.

Click to expand...

Lets get a bit of sense on keep nets no fish over a certain size in length not weight to be put into keep nets .
I have stopped fishing several places because they do not allow keep nets , I like fishing for silvers much more than the bigger stuff why should i have to mess my chosen peg up by having to put every fish back to go tell his buddies just because there are dang carp in the water ..

maggot_dangler said:

Lets get a bit of sense on keep nets no fish over a certain size in length not weight to be put into keep nets .
I have stopped fishing several places because they do not allow keep nets , I like fishing for silvers much more than the bigger stuff why should i have to mess my chosen peg up by having to put every fish back to go tell his buddies just because there are dang carp in the water ..

Click to expand...

No carp in keepnets seems very sensible to me. Then no carp in the lake would appeal too.