Proposed New Byelaws

Greg Whitehead · Oct 27, 2009

EA Press Release on Proposed New Byelaws

Who's happy at the proposed new byelaws limtiing the number of rod-caught fish that can be removed by anglers to:

Rivers - a small number of fish for bait and a limited number of larger fish each season (providing the controlling club/owner allows such removals)

Lakes - fish may only be removed with the written permission of the owner

For further details check out AT or the news releases here on FM.

Answers on a postcard.....

peter crabtree · Oct 27, 2009

I am happy with these new byelaws as long as the penalties imposed for breaking them are more than a slapped wrist.......

richiekelly · Oct 27, 2009

i am very happy with them on the EA website i voted ? for no fish to be removed (coarse only ) we have no right to remove fish that another angler may want to fish for.

Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC) · Oct 27, 2009

...thus implying/emphasising that we fish FOR SPORT and falling right into the hands of P£ta.

Xplorer1 · Oct 27, 2009

Very happy. I supported it on the EA website survey too.

richiekelly · Oct 27, 2009

Mr. Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC) said:
...thus implying/emphasising that we fish FOR SPORT and falling right into the hands of P£ta.

what do we fish for it certainly isnt for food

Bill Cox · Oct 27, 2009

i agree with the proposed new bylaws and i am at a loss to understand how pretending we fish for any thing other then sport can be in any way laudable to anyone thinking about it!! peta or otherwise. I can understand the thinking that we dont shout it from the rooftops but come on its obvious why we fish so why try to deny it when asked. I enjoy my fishing and i will defend my right to do it F**k PETA and anyone else who does not like it. I dont try and stop them existing on lentils do i.

slime monster · Oct 27, 2009

Matt ,perhaps you could explain just how you would describe our reasons for going fishing in a way that that would make you happy and not stir up those that would use "fishing for sport" against us , ....

The bad one · Oct 28, 2009

People like PETA we will never convince about angling and why we fish, they are fundamentally opposed to any sport, hobby that uses animals in it, dog racing, horse racing, fish keeping and up to a point keeping pet animals. We should always be mindful of what halfturths and lies they are venomously spewing out. And then take them on at an intellectual, philosophical, scientific level at every opportunity that presents itself.

In the past we have had no coherent vehicle to do this or to point the media at for a response to their claims. Subsequently, the media have sort individuals out theirselves and to be brutally truthful, may of them have been **** at doing it. Coming across as imbeciles and incompetents because they have not been up on the game or particularly media savy.

We now have that vehicle in the Angling Trust and some very able people who are both on the game and media savy.
As the Trust build it's profile to the media and it's robust defence of angling, the more sensationalist stories they've ran with in the past from press release for PETA and the like will lessen.

dezza · Oct 28, 2009

The bad one said:
People like PETA we will never convince about angling and why we fish, they are fundamentally opposed to any sport, hobby that uses animals in it, dog racing, horse racing, fish keeping and up to a point keeping pet animals. We should always be mindful of what halfturths and lies they are venomously spewing out. And then take them on at an intellectual, philosophical, scientific level at every opportunity that presents itself.

In the past we have had no coherent vehicle to do this or to point the media at for a response to their claims. Subsequently, the media have sort individuals out theirselves and to be brutally truthful, may of them have been **** at doing it. Coming across as imbeciles and incompetents because they have not been up on the game or particularly media savy.

We now have that vehicle in the Angling Trust and some very able people who are both on the game and media savy.
As the Trust build it's profile to the media and it's robust defence of angling, the more sensationalist stories they've ran with in the past from press release for PETA and the like will lessen.

Excellent post Phil, I couldn't agree more.

But I think you should be aware of the negative attutude regarding the Angling Trust being taken by members of our sister website: Fly Forums.

Stealph Viper · Oct 28, 2009

Ron The Hat Clay said:
But I think you should be aware of the negative attutude regarding the Angling Trust being taken by members of our sister website: Fly Forums.

Ron, i would see that as a Positive note, because, it means that they are worried about the momentum gathering to support the Angling Trust has got people worried, worried that they no longer have total control and are no longer the only voice that is being heard.

Let them carry on, they will eat their words.

dezza · Oct 28, 2009

But the poison one particular bloke is spouting is being agreed with by his psycophants. I have no idea who he is but he seems to my mind a particularly unsavoury beast. Calls himself "Whingeing Pom".

See:

http://flyforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=549979#post549979

_______________

Life Member Angling Trust

Peter Jacobs · Oct 28, 2009

Ron The Hat Clay said:
But the poison one particular bloke is spouting is being agreed with by his psycophants. I have no idea who he is but he seems to my mind a particularly unsavoury beast. Calls himself "Whingeing Pom".

See:

http://flyforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=549979#post549979

_______________

Life Member Angling Trust

Ron,

I have been following that thread for quite a while, watching it stray and then be brought back on course.

The comments by the 'whingeing pom' are simply his own view of the entire angling situation given the very broad spectrum that the Angling Trust has to cover plus his views on Fish Legal. If you read it dispassionately he makes some interesting points.

He is as entitled to his view as you and I are to ours, however, thankfully it seems that the vast majority of contributors to that thread don't agree with him.

Some of the points being made on that thread do in fact highlight many of the obstacles that the Angling Trust will have to overcome if, (as we all hope) they are to unite all the angling disciplines.

dezza · Oct 28, 2009

"The biggest threat to ALL anglers is the Angling Trust!!"

That's what "Whingeing Pom" says!

It's a bit strong isn't it?

richiekelly · Oct 28, 2009

Ron The Hat Clay said:
"The biggest threat to ALL anglers is the Angling Trust!!"

That's what "Whingeing Pom" says!

It's a bit strong isn't it?

the biggest threat to all anglers i belive is if the AT fails due to lack of support from anglers the majority of who seem to think that everything in the garden is rosy IT AINT and hasnt been for a long time, it seems to me that the whinging pomm is an im alright jack, he says in his post that there should be suitable penalties for polluters who is going to fight for them if it isnt fish legal

keora · Oct 28, 2009

To get back to Greg Whitehead's original question, yes, I think the proposed regulations are workable and will satisfy most anglers apart from a few whingers.

Predator anglers, as I understand it, would be allowed to use a limited number of small fish for bait in the waters they are caught in. And for those who like eating fish, a few of our more edible species such as grayling can be taken away.

We still require good policing of our waters to enforce the laws. At least it will be easier to prosecute offenders, because the current laws are so inconsistent throughout the country that the EA has been unwilling to prosecute all but the most blatant offenders.

dezza · Oct 28, 2009

And trout too, but I suppose that the bag limit on many still water trout fisheries is in writing by the owners or in the case of large reservoirs, the managers.

Other than that, the rules look fine.

richiekelly · Oct 28, 2009

Keith2 said:
To get back to Greg Whitehead's original question, yes, I think the proposed regulations are workable and will satisfy most anglers apart from a few whingers.

Predator anglers, as I understand it, would be allowed to use a limited number of small fish for bait in the waters they are caught in. And for those who like eating fish, a few of our more edible species such as grayling can be taken away.

We still require good policing of our waters to enforce the laws. At least it will be easier to prosecute offenders, because the current laws are so inconsistent throughout the country that the EA has been unwilling to prosecute all but the most blatant offenders.

who will be policing what size and amount of fish are removed? i suspect things will carry on as now, if the taking of any fish was stopped the law would cease to be inconsistent and prosicution should be easier than in the past

Greg Whitehead · Oct 28, 2009

The byelaws only apply to coarse fish as far as I'm aware, not salmonids (I think they're treating grayling as coarse fish - poor things, I guess the adipose is just for show....).
And I think most of us will agree that there's only one real obstacle the AT has to overcome and that's getting people to join up!!!!

Graham Marsden · Oct 28, 2009

Link to Press Release

Proposed New Byelaws

Well-known member

AKA Simon, 1953 - 2022 (RIP)

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Editor Emeritus