A very disturbing story (if true)

[Bob Roberts]

If you want Greg to investigate then you certainly need to provide details of the venue and some actual facts. So far all we've had is hearsay, innuendo and speculation. It may simply be Chinese whispers for all we know.

Regarding eel fishing in the Severn Trent area the old rule which probably still applies for eel fishing was a hook with a minimum gape of half and inch and the method had to be legering.

If anglers boycott the fishery, what purpose will it serve? Will that prevent the alleged fish killers from returning? Will it be any kind of deterent? Or will it simply give the killers free reign to do what they want.

This is akin to a lynch mob. No facts, no evidence but they're bloody foreigners so let's hang them anyway and send the fishery owner to jail 'cos he's a bloody collaborator....

I think we need a bit of flesh on the bones before this turns into any kind of witch hunt. To use your own words, 'I don't have any proof, but...'

Perhaps a little caution is in order.

 

[preston96]

so i can legally fish rivers for barbel during the river closed season then? if this is correct what is the use of having a closed season for these fish?

if i catch a barbel during the closed season while fishing for trout and eels am i breaking the law? iknow that i am being pedantic but to me the fishery owner must have known that they were going to fish the river once again greed reigns over anything else,

No, if you catch a barbel during the close season you are NOT breaking the law..........i understand that you simply have to return it.

I agree with you that greed is the driving force here.......but no court could uphold a case against the day ticket seller if legal fishing methods for the time of year were up held and made plain.

Those "taking" the fish could, if anyone bothered, be dealt with in a court of law.................if anyone disagrees then feel free to put me right.

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

All this comes about because we have a law that is so out of date, the closed season on rivers. The laws have loopholes, and people will find away around what ever the law is.

Remove the closed season, make the law NO REMOVING ANY FISH OF ANY SIZE AT ANYTIME, Problem solved.

With the laws as they are, those breaking them never get big fines, as the courts are to soft and so is the government.

Whilst we are following the laws, our fish are being taken for sale, or for food, 3 months off the bankside is free fishing and free meals for those ready to break the law.

What happens next, Anglers complain about lack of fish, etc etc etc.

PM me the facts and details you have, and I will look into it if you want, I will not let any cats out of the bag, just report back what I find out.

 

[Graham Whatmore]

Anglers have been fishing 'out of season' for as long as I can remember and I know for a fact that before and after the war fishing with a lead and worm was accepted (and never queried by authorities) as the norm, I myself did it on the Severn and Wark Avon in the 60's and 70's as did most Midland anglers.

The major problem with the "is it legal" is there are no firm national guidelines or laws laid out for anglers to see, some areas allow it some demand a fly rod some frown on any sort of fishing, hardly the way to control it if that is what is required. The law is so vague that we have on here seasoned anglers still not sure what the actual law is but Bob is right about the hook size (though I am not sure of the actual size, I rightly or wrongly believed that it was a No.2 hook) because I have seen that in writing somewhere, thats two of us so why doesn't every angler know that it is a requirement?

 

[preston96]

Anglers have been fishing 'out of season' for as long as I can remember and I know for a fact that before and after the war fishing with a lead and worm was accepted (and never queried by authorities) as the norm, I myself did it on the Severn and Wark Avon in the 60's and 70's as did most Midland anglers.

The major problem with the "is it legal" is there are no firm national guidelines or laws laid out for anglers to see, some areas allow it some demand a fly rod some frown on any sort of fishing, hardly the way to control it if that is what is required. The law is so vague that we have on here seasoned anglers still not sure what the actual law is but Bob is right about the hook size (though I am not sure of the actual size, I rightly or wrongly believed that it was a No.2 hook) because I have seen that in writing somewhere, thats two of us so why doesn't every angler know that it is a requirement?

Graham, we were bought up on the old river board licences.....for those of you who dont know what that means, we had to buy licences to fish different parts of the country....eg, Servern Trent was one licence, Welsh water another the list went on.

If my memory serves me correctly each area licence had it's own local bylaws on it......Severn Trent allowed worming for eels on ledger tackle with a hook of a certain gape

I think a lot of what we had to abide by then stays with us.......you are right mate, lots of Midland anglers fished with worms in the 60's and 70's, for me river eeling played a huge part of my early years.......i loved those warm sultry nights, still do, though i dont fish rivers for eel anymore.

 

[the indifferent crucian]

Don't forget that since last month there have been new laws about what may be taken from waters , although these laws are pre-dated by the incident refered to it seems.

The situation with taking fish is a little clearer now and although I'm no expert on cooking coarse fish it does seem that what is allowed now is too small to bother with.



" On rivers, once the season opens on 16 June, anglers may only remove each day:
* Up to 15 small fish (up to 20cm) of barbel, chub, common bream, common carp, crucian carp, dace, perch, pike, roach, rudd, silver bream, smelt or tench
* Up to two grayling of 30-38cm
* A single pike of up to 65cm

Anglers who remove more or different fish than this, will be committing an offence and risk a substantial fine.

Anglers can still remove:
* ‘Tiddler’ species, such as gudgeon
* Non-native species, such as zander
* Ornamental varieties of native species, such as ghost or koi carp

Anglers will still need the owner or occupier’s permission to remove fish from private waters and fishery owners may also impose their own stricter rules.

On stillwaters, anglers may only remove fish if they have written permission from the fishery owner. Someone who takes fish without such permission will be committing a byelaw offence, as well as one of theft.

To protect threatened stocks, from 1 June all rod-caught eel and shad must be returned to the water alive, including when they are taken from estuaries and coastal waters.

Environment Agency Fisheries Manager Adrian Taylor said: “These byelaws achieve the right balance – they allow anglers to remove some freshwater fish for the pot or for bait, while still protecting valuable coarse fisheries. Stillwater fisheries will also be protected, but fishery managers will have the flexibility to allow anglers to take fish away.

“The Environment Agency wants to work with the angling community to make the most of these new powers. Fishery owners and clubs can help us focus our enforcement by providing prompt, accurate information on where and when people are removing fish illegally. We also want anglers to spread the word that mandatory catch and release is now generally the norm.”

The byelaws are available for download from the Environment Agency website at: Environment Agency - Rod Fishing Byelaws. "




I'd think you'd get a reasonable pike for the table at 65cm, that's got to be over 7lbs. And a 38cm Grayling?.....that'd be a record fish wouldn't it ?


Some strange decisions there !

 

[Fred Blake]

All this comes about because we have a law that is so out of date, the closed season on rivers. The laws have loopholes, and people will find away around what ever the law is.

Remove the closed season, make the law NO REMOVING ANY FISH OF ANY SIZE AT ANYTIME, Problem solved.

With the laws as they are, those breaking them never get big fines, as the courts are to soft and so is the government.

Whilst we are following the laws, our fish are being taken for sale, or for food, 3 months off the bankside is free fishing and free meals for those ready to break the law.

What happens next, Anglers complain about lack of fish, etc etc etc.

PM me the facts and details you have, and I will look into it if you want, I will not let any cats out of the bag, just report back what I find out.

Dodgy territory that - if you prohibit the taking of any fish with rod and line at any time, you risk bringing into question the legitimacy of angling itself - after all, in many peoples' eyes it would seem pointless to fish if you can't eat them. The right to fish for food is one of our strongest arguments against the accusation of cruelty. Furthermore, what would become of most trout fisheries? Would they all have to revert to catch and release?

It frankly annoys me when I hear 'English' anglers making phobic, bigoted rants about Europeans taking fish for the pot, when most English anglers don't even know the law. The fact you may excercise your right to return all fish you catch does not mean everyone should be made to do likewise; there are rules in place to control catch limits and closed seasons, and licences are issued for the right to bear rods. Provided a current licence is obtained, the owner of the water has granted consent (or the water in question is a free fishery - e.g the Thames below Staines) and the methods used do not contravene national or local byelaws, one is still free to take a specified number of fish.

I quite agree that it's criminal to poach fish from any water without permission, but that's a separate issue, requiring greater vigilance on the part of the authorities. Sadly, in these cost-cutting times I fear a few fish do not warrant quite the same level of attention as global terrorism, fraud, drugs and people trafficking.

Incidentally, in some localities it is illegal to use a hook for eels during the closed season - hence 'bobbing' or 'babbing' with worms threaded on coarse worsted wool.

 

[alan whittington]

Fred,i fear you are living on another planet,havnt you seen the long lines,the nets,or even heard of our eastern friends taking dustbin bags of fish,i have talked to bailiffs on council owned waters,who have witnessed the boiling of several roach in a large pot and the barbecuing of good bream,sorry to say it mate but it generally costs more to actually go fishing than to go to a market and buy a bag of chicken breasts,which require no cleaning(as in gutting),no fish should be removed for food,unless we are all allowed to kill otters,swans etc,im sure swans are quite tasty as the ba***rds eat those as well.:wh

 

[stikflote]

on the Derwent in derby you can fish out of season on a ledger and worm,

it states it in ticket, ive many a big roach bream barbel all out of season,
legaly

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

Fred,i fear you are living on another planet,havnt you seen the long lines,the nets,or even heard of our eastern friends taking dustbin bags of fish,i have talked to bailiffs on council owned waters,who have witnessed the boiling of several roach in a large pot and the barbecuing of good bream,sorry to say it mate but it generally costs more to actually go fishing than to go to a market and buy a bag of chicken breasts,which require no cleaning(as in gutting),no fish should be removed for food,unless we are all allowed to kill otters,swans etc,im sure swans are quite tasty as the ba***rds eat those as well.:wh

Good point Alan,

If those taking the fish and Swans get caught, and they have taken what they have against the laws, I bet you they would get done for the swan, but not the fish.

It seems to me, to many anglers just want to stick their heads in the sand when it comes to our oversaes anglers nicking our fish. I don't give a Sh*t if the law says you can take some fish for the pot or not. Facts are our waters are not going to get any better when we have overseas angler's taking what they want, when they want.

Some need to wake up, cos these guys are doing more damage to our fish stocks, than everything else put together.

 

[Fred Blake]

Good point Alan,

If those taking the fish and Swans get caught, and they have taken what they have against the laws, I bet you they would get done for the swan, but not the fish.

It seems to me, to many anglers just want to stick their heads in the sand when it comes to our oversaes anglers nicking our fish. I don't give a Sh*t if the law says you can take some fish for the pot or not. Facts are our waters are not going to get any better when we have overseas angler's taking what they want, when they want.

Some need to wake up, cos these guys are doing more damage to our fish stocks, than everything else put together.

The point you're choosing to ignore is that there are rules in place allowing fish to be taken for the pot. The fact that some people choose to ignore those rules and fish illegally makes no difference at all; they would ignore new rules just the same. However, introducing new rules prohibiting the taking of any fish under any circumstances would bring into question the whole point of angling, not least the loss of most game and sea fishing, as well as preventing law-abiding anglers from taking the odd trout or pike from waters where they had permission to do so.

The answer is greater vigilence and more punitive penalties for trangressions, not new laws.

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

The answer is greater vigilence and more punitive penalties for trangressions, not new laws.

And that is where your law makers and the courts, let us down, every time.

Vigilence makes no difference what so ever, because when caught, Bu**er all is done, and you know that. Who said anything about Trout and sea anglers, they can knock as many fish on the head as they like for all I care. Trout must be the worst fish that swims.

I don't think some anglers understand just how bad it is, and your rules and laws just make the sport laughable. Take a look at the size of some of the fish you can take. How many Grayling of that size have you seen in your lifetime ?? None I would think, so explain how that is right.

 

[Fred Blake]

And that is where your law makers and the courts, let us down, every time.

Vigilence makes no difference what so ever, because when caught, Bu**er all is done, and you know that.

So why make a new law to prohibit taking of fish? By your own admission the laws are not enforced.

Who said anything about Trout and sea anglers, they can knock as many fish on the head as they like for all I care. Trout must be the worst fish that swims.

So if the Poles were setting nightlines for trout in the rivers, or longlining for cod off the beach you'd cheerfully let them carry on, but if one of them dares to take a couple of your precious roach (even if fairly caught on rod and line, in season) you blow a fuse? Do you not realise how stupid that position must appear to the ordinary man on the Clapham Omnibus, or whoever it is these days whose votes dictate future Government policy?

I don't think some anglers understand just how bad it is, and your rules and laws just make the sport laughable. Take a look at the size of some of the fish you can take. How many Grayling of that size have you seen in your lifetime ?? None I would think, so explain how that is right.

The bass conservation people want the minimum size limit for bass increased to protect juvenile fish from being taken before they reach maturity. You appear to want the size limit for graying reduced, presumably to protect the bigger specimens - but to what end? Improved sport for you I suspect, not conservation of the species.

It's this sort of self-serving ignorance that really threatens the future of angling. You freely admit you don't care about trout or sea fish, so how can you consider your views to be balanced?

 

[richiekelly]

people can argue the toss all they want on here but the truth is that fish are being taken for the pot by people other than anglers that fish for sport, until the people responsible for protecting fish stocks are backed up by the courts nothing will change and the illegal taking of fish will continue,if i was taken to court for stealing something worth £100 i would probably get a large fine but if it was for stealing a double figure carp i doubt the punishment would be the same.

i have had personal experience of fish being taken, a few years ago i lived in chaple st leonards and while fishing for pike i was approched by 2 eastern europeans asking for a small pike i had caught when i refused i was threatened luckily enough 2 of my sons fishing nearby came to my aid but it wasnt a pleasent experience, other anglers have told me that the same thing happened to them.

these people dont give a toss about being caught or the court system because they know that even if they are caught not much will happen to them.

my son found a net accross a part of the river nene that runs at the back of wellinbough lakes (carp syndicate with fish over 40lbs in them ) fortunatly there were no fish in it but the river is only 20 yards from the lakes would the carp have been next? what is a 40lb carp worth (english fish ) would a fine reflect the value of the fish? i doubt it.

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

So why make a new law to prohibit taking of fish? By your own admission the laws are not enforced.



So if the Poles were setting nightlines for trout in the rivers, or longlining for cod off the beach you'd cheerfully let them carry on, but if one of them dares to take a couple of your precious roach (even if fairly caught on rod and line, in season) you blow a fuse? Do you not realise how stupid that position must appear to the ordinary man on the Clapham Omnibus, or whoever it is these days whose votes dictate future Government policy?



The bass conservation people want the minimum size limit for bass increased to protect juvenile fish from being taken before they reach maturity. You appear to want the size limit for graying reduced, presumably to protect the bigger specimens - but to what end? Improved sport for you I suspect, not conservation of the species.

It's this sort of self-serving ignorance that really threatens the future of angling. You freely admit you don't care about trout or sea fish, so how can you consider your views to be balanced?

1st, you make a new law that stands up, and fines those who take fish when they shouldn't, making the fine very heavy.#

2nd, who said anything about the Poles, it's not just them, far from it. The sea and Trout anglers, look after themselves, we need to do the same.

3rd, I don't want any fish of any size taken from our rivers and lakes until stocks are back, nothing to do with my sport at all, so you got that wrong also.

4th, It's your own self serving ignorance that lets angling down, you think it's ok for our fish to be taken and that the laws are right, when it's as clear as the nose on your face, the laws are an Ar*e, and so is the taking of fish.

I don't care what the sea and trout boys do, i admit, thats because they look after themselves, and rightly so. It's your veiw that is not balanced.

My way, we will get back our fish stocks, the fish thieves will get heavy fines.

Thats more than you want.

If you want angling to stay around as I do, then you should want things to change for the better, but it seems not.

 

[alan whittington]

One other point is that when a law is made making the use of mobile phones illegal whilst your engine is running in your car,how many people take any notice,most of these are not habitual criminals but still blatantly break the law with few ever getting even a b****cking,im afraid a law protecting our fish stocks needs the backing of our police force(which seems unlikely in the present climate),otherwise our fish eating 'friends' will continue to take advantage of our apethetic attitude.

 

[klik2change]

Before anyone can be put before the court, they have to be caught. If they constantly escape without detection then they will feel completely free to do it again.

Severe punishments do not work. Remember the old saying "might as well be caught for stealing a sheep as for stealing a lamb". Deterrence works if and only if the system works as it should. Making sentences more severe will not help.

 

[alan whittington]

Most that are caught are allowed to walk(saves on paperwork you know),anyway the way our wonderful new government thinks,nobody will go to jail,because it doesnt stop re-offending you know(i thought the idea was to punish wrong-doers),lets be fair at 56 im not going to be taking on people taking fish and the likelyhood of the police rushing to apprehend these people doesnt seem likely either.Looking at it from the eyes of an honest Englishman,it looks like the country is going to the dogs and all government is interested in is making money for business,which has always been the tory way but it has gone across the board,as has the law and order ethic.

 

[tortoise100]

I honestly think the people who take fish illegally would do it whatever the laws are lets face it they would never be very harsh anyway.

At my local club they are trying to stamp out the fish theft but it's not all eastern Europeans there is an English bloke who turns up late at night and leaves by 5 am with a bag full of carp .

They even know who it is but have got to actually catch him at it .

They are doing late night bailiff rounds to try and catch him and our local EA are very good come down within half an hour to check licenses and sort out the abusive people who happened to be eastern European last time .

Though I realize this is not a typical situation and our club has only just been set up with the help of the EA on a wildlife trust water.

 

[quickcedo]

Personally and for many reason I would like to see an end to the close season. I believe if it was made illegal to take any fish this would infringe on the rights of predator anglers (live baits ets). However I am in full agreement with the law being made tougher for people breaking the present laws reguarding fish and fishing. I fear the only way this will ever be policed properly is if anglers pay for it. I appreciate a proportion of my licence fee goes toward this but it is woefully short of being enough. In these times money talks, and it doesn't seem to matter who has the moral high ground, just who can afford to pay for the law.