• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

Any truth??

Hi Colin..I learnt to river fish on the Severn and back in those days (20 yrs or so) it was common place to catch 50lb or so of Barbel & chub but the Severn changed some time ago..There used to be alot of streamer weed and it was packed with Roach, Dace and other fish species..Quite a few venues on the Severn have been declining for some number of years particually the silver fish population..There are still some venues where good weights are still to be had but nowhere near as many as it used to be..Unfortunately it seems alot of rivers are a shadow of what they used to be and probably the same reasons as to why they are declining whatever that cause may be..
 
I think that there are winners and losers river quality wise. If there are more winners the EA are correct, strictly speaking.

Lets not have another knock the EA thread ey. They might not be that good but we dont have owt else.

Mr Roberts is clearly speaking from a point of ignorance as he thinks geese eat fish.
.
 
Last edited:
Tony Rocca said:
Mr Roberts is clearly speaking from a point of ignorance as he thinks geese eat fish.
.
Click to expand...

Tony,
have a read of the article again. Nowhere is Mr Roberts quoted as saying geese eat fish. There is a mention of "goose gander". I strongly suspect that it's an incompetent journalist and Mr Roberts was actually talking about goosander.;)
 
Geoff,
Wrong Mr Roberts fool. Bet you feel really silly.

Chris,
"said young fish and adult fish were being eaten at an alarming rate by birds, including cormorants and geese".

Is he not?????? I fail to see how anyone could read that differently. A load` of Goosanders have never been geese. I see the bit further down about Goose ganders though.

.
 
Last edited:
I don't feel silly tr - after all I have read your ground breaking/destroying posts in the past. I hoped you may have become more sanguine as time passed.
 
Tony Rocca said:
Chris,
"said young fish and adult fish were being eaten at an alarming rate by birds, including cormorants and geese".

Is he not?????? I fail to see how anyone could read that differently. A load` of Goosanders have never been geese.

.
Click to expand...


That's the sub headline as written by the journalist, it's not in quotes at all.

The bit in quotes reads :-

He said: “On the river near the West Mid Showground you have got about 80-odd goose gander and at Pimley Manor in Sundorne there is a bunch of about 40 or 50 of them.

“They get together for one period and then split off.â€

I still reckon that the journalist has misunderstood goosander to get goose gander then further compounded the error into geese in the sub headline.

None of the first three or four paragraphs apart from the word "crisis" have any quotation marks whatsoever. I'd be surprised if Mr Roberts ever mentioned geese at all.
 
Fair point Chris, reads bad though.

Geoff,
I have alway been of a sanguine disposition. I would have felt silly if it were I. What with throwing in a totally irrelevant comment in when I hadn't even bothered to read the subject of the thread. Some might even think an apology was warrented for such personal comments. Fortunately I care little about the words of your ilk.

You ought to be careful, might get banned like you were from Yorkshire fishing.
 
Last edited:
Tony Rocca said:
Geoff,
Wrong Mr Roberts fool. Bet you feel really silly.

Chris,
"said young fish and adult fish were being eaten at an alarming rate by birds, including cormorants and geese".

Is he not?????? I fail to see how anyone could read that differently. A load` of Goosanders have never been geese. I see the bit further down about Goose ganders though.

.
Click to expand...


Hi Tony,

I hesitated a bit before poking my nose in mate, because I really don't know the truth here....but based purely on hope and faith it would make more sense to me if the nonsense printed in that article was more down to journalistic ignorance and/or misquoting than any fault of the official involved.

By that I mean that I would certainly hope that a chairman and head bailiff of an angling federation would know that geese do not eat fish, and that goosander do....and I have complete faith in the fact that a local rag would undoubtably have the office tea person covering anything as mundane as angling...and he/she probably wouldn't know a goosander from a gerbil.

Just my thoughts fella, but I admit I may well be wrong :rolleyes:

Cheers, Dave.
 
Oh touche tony - you have cut me to the quick. Must admit my post was driven by the utter boredom of reading the recent posts and did not research well enough but knew that someone like yourself would be up for it. I apologise for equating rocca and roberts and hope you forgive my sloppy research Thought you may have had something interesting to offer rather than that yf swipe - a site so irrelevent I don't think you have ever insulted anybody on it- Last 3 posts all edited - crikey -you are watching your back a lot more than you used to - where is your gay abandon?
A
 
That may well be the case David.


Geoff,
I know of 'your way' and cant be arsed with it to be honest.
.
 
Last edited:
Tony Rocca said:
Geoff,
Wrong Mr Roberts fool. Bet you feel really silly.

Chris,
"said young fish and adult fish were being eaten at an alarming rate by birds, including cormorants and geese".

Is he not?????? I fail to see how anyone could read that differently. A load` of Goosanders have never been geese. I see the bit further down about Goose ganders though.

.
Click to expand...
sounds like the reporter has had a bad case of "send three and four pence we're going to a dance" syndrome ;) if i have to explain it your younger than me:D
 
In short I and a few people i know who actually make there living from fishing or live right on the banks and rent places, think the rivers are now too clean.
 
Tony Rocca said:
I think that there are winners and losers river quality wise. If there are more winners the EA are correct, strictly speaking.

Lets not have another knock the EA thread ey. They might not be that good but we dont have owt else.

Mr Roberts is clearly speaking from a point of ignorance as he thinks geese eat fish.
.
Click to expand...

Winners: A few rivers in areas of low population density (minority).

Losers: Most rivers in areas of high population density (majority).

A classic EA line: "The rivers of England are free of DDT's and water quality is at an all time high. Quantifiable by the increase in otter numbers."

Sorry Tony but the EA deserve every bit of **** they get (and some).
Lie number one:
The EA have done nothing to end DDT pollution, the chemical was banned in 1984, the EA wasn't formed until 1996.

Lie number two:
Otter numbers bear no direct correlation to water quality, otter numbers as an apex predator are naturally governed by food availability and despite what Graham Scholey and other EA big wigs claim most rivers are not experiencing a boom period regards stocks, not misleading the public they serve, rather just blatantly lying.
Especially as otter numbers were artificially increased/inflated.

Lie number three:
Their pledge to actively improve our fisheries, I know some that are holding there own, I even know some that have been improved in the last 14 years but how many have been improved directly as a result of EA work and does that number outweigh the number ignored, overlooked, neglected and left to deteriorate by the agency charged with the task (and claiming succes) of improving matters.



Knighthoods all round for the guardians of our waterways.
 
Last edited:
Colin said,...... "Losers: All rivers in areas of high population density (majority)".


What as in........ Sheffield (Don & Rother), Leeds (Aire), Barnsley (Dearne), Wakefield (Calder).

Lets not forget the Trent, it does after all drain a third of England.

I Dont think its quite so Colin, your way off mark, and giving the EA stick on here does nowt.
.
.
 
Last edited:
Tony Rocca said:
Colin said,...... "Losers: All rivers in areas of high population density (majority)".


What as in........ Sheffield (Don & Rother), Leeds (Aire), Barnsley (Dearne), Wakefield (Calder).

Lets not forget the Trent, it does after all drain a third of England.

I Dont think its quite so Colin, your way off mark, and giving the EA stick on here does nowt.
.
.
Click to expand...

I have edited "all" replacing it with a more acceptable (??) "most"

As in Oxford, Reading, London (Thames, Cherwell, Kennet, Lea, Wey), Milton Keynes (Great Ouse), Bournemouth (Dorset Stour), Carlisle (Eden).
(even included a norvern river to burst your norvern bubble)

Lets not forget the Severn, it is after all Britains biggest river.

Tony I do think it is you that's way off the mark, perhaps brain washed by all the EA's bulldung and spiel.

Seemingly I am not alone in my disdain of the EA's lies and pathetic attempt at using otter re-introductions as a means to cover up their mess:
http://www.banburycake.co.uk/archiv...70490.ANGLING__Return_of_otters_is_big_worry/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top