No protection for minnows...

peter crabtree

peter crabtree

AKA Simon, 1953 - 2022 (RIP)
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
8,304
Reaction score
3,263
Location
Metroland. SW Herts
or gudgeon,bleak ruff,bitterling,zander,grass carp. Accordingto the AT today.
These and a few others are not considered native species so are not included in the new fish removal bye laws:confused:
 
The bad one

The bad one

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
6,123
Reaction score
2,125
Location
Manchester
peter crabtree said:
or gudgeon,bleak ruff,bitterling,zander,grass carp. Accordingto the AT today.
These and a few others are not considered native species so are not included in the new fish removal bye laws:confused:
Click to expand...

Well Peter they have to write something, and letting the truth (in some species cases) get in the way of a good story was never their strongest point.

Next they'll be asking the EA to extend the fishing season by 4 weeks because of the big freeze :D
 
Graham Whatmore

Graham Whatmore

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2003
Messages
9,147
Reaction score
9
Location
Lydney, in the Forest of Dean
Hmmmm! How on earth did bleak and gudgeon get here if they are aren't a native species?

No mention of Signal Crayfish then, or mink, or the black death, or grey squirrels, the list must be endless.
 
H

honslow

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
2,417
Reaction score
3
Despite Phil's implications that AT journos are inveterate liars, the story is accurate.
The EA felt that the smaller natives species such as bleak and gudgeon didn't need protection. The non-natives are covered by either Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act or the Import of Live Fish Act, or both, and as a result it was felt the EA couldn't insist anglers return such species to the water when other legislation prohibits their return..... Looks like the proposals are a compromise really.
Why extend the season by just four weeks Phil? Why not get rid of the closed season completely? We all know that it has absolutely no foundation in scientific fact whatsoever (as the Moran Committee established over a decade ago.......).
Maybe you will be able to grace us with an explanation for your yobbish unfounded accusation regards untruthful reporting? Or not as the case may be.
PS - Happy New Year to you too!!!!
 
Last edited:
The bad one

The bad one

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
6,123
Reaction score
2,125
Location
Manchester
Greg said:
Despite Phil's implications that AT journos are inveterate liars, the story is accurate.
The EA felt that the smaller natives species such as bleak and gudgeon didn't need protection. The non-natives are covered by either Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act or the Import of Live Fish Act, or both, and as a result it was felt the EA couldn't insist anglers return such species to the water when other legislation prohibits their return..... Looks like the proposals are a compromise really.
Why extend the season by just four weeks Phil? Why not get rid of the closed season completely? We all know that it has absolutely no foundation in scientific fact whatsoever (as the Moran Committee established over a decade ago.......).
Maybe you will be able to grace us with an explanation for your yobbish unfounded accusation regards untruthful reporting? Or not as the case may be.
PS - Happy New Year to you too!!!!
Click to expand...

Greg happy new year to you too!
Not sure the the Moran Comm did mate! Might have been something to do with commecial pressure..... Now who drove that pressure I wonder?

With some rivers in the perilous state they are in......you know all those apex predators and all that :D Could the few fish that remain take the pressure of being caught when gravid.... Best not eh!

Oh and on a serious note, you'll be running a story on frozen waters and breaking the ice to let the gases out will you? So the fish don't get asphyxiated
 
Last edited:
H

honslow

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
2,417
Reaction score
3
Was thinking about it on Monday Phil but it would seem that the fishery management experts are still spilt on whether you should do it or not. It's only likely to effect the shallowest and most poorly run commercials and I for one am not going to lose and sleep over what happens on such venues....
Who cares about commercial pressure, I'm more interested in the science. But we've already established the EA's too skint to do any, so that debate's water under the bridge at the moment... As for evidence of angling pressure having a detrimental effect on gravid fish, I wasn't aware there was any! Yes, we all know there are far bigger problems affecting our rivers than anglers or otters, although having all your prized specimens eaten under your nose does have a rather demotivating effect as I'm sure you can imagine! X
 
peter crabtree

peter crabtree

AKA Simon, 1953 - 2022 (RIP)
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
8,304
Reaction score
3,263
Location
Metroland. SW Herts
Native species was the bit that I didn't fully understand. We all know where carp came from and why, so why are they,(common and mirror )considered native, and gudgeon ,bleak, ruffe etc are not?
 
The bad one

The bad one

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
6,123
Reaction score
2,125
Location
Manchester
peter crabtree said:
Native species was the bit that I didn't fully understand. We all know where carp came from and why, so why are they,(common and mirror )considered native, and gudgeon ,bleak, ruffe etc are not?
Click to expand...

Peter, and let me make it clear here I don't agree with this, but the EA class a species of fish as native if it's been here over 100 years. Hence carp. The latter 3 are and as Greg has stated.... The EA felt that the smaller natives species such as bleak and gudgeon didn't need protection

The whole crux of this legislation was to stop coarse fish being taken for eating by those of different cultural viewpoint on eating coarse fish.

Their (EA) view is that the smaller species aren't take for eating by the above so didn't need protecting. Whether that's right or not, is open to debate.
 
richiekelly

richiekelly

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
2,706
Reaction score
1
Location
warwickshire
The whole crux of this legislation was to stop coarse fish being taken for eating by those of different cultural viewpoint on eating coarse fish.

Their (EA) view is that the smaller species aren't take for eating by the above so didn't need protecting. Whether that's right or not, is open to debate.[/QUOTE]

i worked with a polish chap a number of years ago who took everything he caught no matter what the size, the smaller fish were ground up and used to make fishcakes.
 
geoffmaynard

geoffmaynard

Content Editor
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
3,999
Reaction score
6
Location
Thorpe Park
!00 years? What about Wels catfish then? They've been here a lot longer than that and are still considered as recent imports
 
The bad one

The bad one

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
6,123
Reaction score
2,125
Location
Manchester
geoffmaynard said:
!00 years? What about Wels catfish then? They've been here a lot longer than that and are still considered as recent imports
Click to expand...
Precisely Geoff!
And why I don't agree with it. For me it should be the Ecological Datum point. That being since the last Ice Age!

And Blanker, why it's open to debate!
 
Last edited:
H

honslow

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
2,417
Reaction score
3
The consultation is still open gents. Feel free to complain in writing to Defra!!!! Where and how found here:
Coarse fish removal byelaw
To view the entire proposed new byelaw, and for details of how to respond to the consultation running until January 20, visit the web address below and click on ‘coarse fish removal’ at the top of the list.

Environment Agency - Proposed new fisheries byelaws - Have your say
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top