illegal barbel

A

albert watkinson

Guest

• Jan 23, 2003

• #1

after being told not to put barbel into his pond mr o'malley does just that .i have never wanted barbel to be put into still water and the punishment does not fit the crime.when will the e.a really put the blocks on this type of offence.

 

G

Gerry Castles

Guest

• Jan 23, 2003

• #2

So what happens to the barbel ? If they are allowed to remain, presumably Mr O'Malley will quickly recoup the cost of the fine and some

 

D

DAVE COOPER

New member

Joined

Aug 27, 2005

Messages

0

Reaction score

0

• Jan 23, 2003

• #3

I would like to know the context of the fine. How much would the 100 barbel of cost him? And does the fine reflect in the cost, as in does it double the cost of the fish or just add a percentage point or two?

Also, who supplied him and why haven't they been fined? They must be guilty also.

 

A

albert watkinson

Guest

• Jan 30, 2003

• #4

i like that coop

 

C

carl crathorne

New member

Joined

Jan 10, 2003

Messages

0

Reaction score

0

• Jan 30, 2003

• #5

how many more people have done this already done this in other waters and got away with it but the way rivers are going it might be the only place too catch them soon then would we mind ?

 

D

David Will

Guest

• Jan 31, 2003

• #6

The answer is and always has been that Fisheries need a licence to operate payable to the EA.To trade you would need the licence, any breach of the rules ie illegal stocking, unlawful importation etc etc means a revoking of the licence. This way the O Malleys of the world cease trading the EA and everyone else save a fortune in court costs.

 

A

albert watkinson

Guest

• Jan 31, 2003

• #7

if they hooked a big barbel near a fast severn ford they would't want to fish for them in a still water again ever.