What was the outcome for said individual?
this is a guy caught recently stealing these fish this was the car he was driving
SADLY ! some people just dont realise whats going on and the close season will mean people like this have the freedom we need eyes and bodies on the banks 12 months of the year to protect our rivers its only going to get worse a lot worse !!!!
another point is as can be seen from the canals and lakes the angling pressure is spread out over 12 months now and you havent got the mad june july swamping
and this imaginary bankside vegetation being adversely affected dont happen either ! anglers need to be on the banks as much as possible
Indeed it is, although this only applies to certain scenarios. You could argue that changing this law would be a better move, however it’s not a right that’s often exercised in this country and many will say it opens a can of worms about catching fish period.Daft thing is ,[If I recall correctly and I haven't checked ] during the open fishing season it is legal to catch and kill coarse fish subject to size limits
AND GAME ANGLERSWhat about everyone else who walks along banks or uses rivers? Do they stop to allow the so called recovery of other bankside life? And has all this other wildlife and fauna been negatively affected by the much more heavily fished stillwaters? I think that's a very flawed argument David, with no basis in fact to back it up.
The suggestion that year round angling could keep an eye on these anglers has more to do with them catching and killing the fish than for simply fishing for pleasure, so the drug dealing analogy isn't that strong. Also, there is no scraping the barrel to provide an argument for scrapping the close season, there are plenty of valid reasons without even mentioning current law breakers, which I agree isn't a strong argument at all. The strongest argument for change is if it's harmful to fish all year round then why was the close season lifted on canals and stillwaters?Precisely, Mike, is it not just a little bit ridiculous to suggest activities against the law (or byelaw in this case I think) are logically put an end to by making said activities legal?
Isn't it logical to require better policing in such cases, maybe even stiffer sentences to dissuade such activities?
I feel anyone who posits such an argument is, at worst, really just trying to pull the wool over the eyes of those who disagree with the position that people should just be allowed to fish year round - scraping the barrel in terms of trying to find a reason, at best!
Does anyone know the answer to this? Why did they exclude rivers?.. why was the close season lifted on canals and stillwaters?
I may be wrong, but i don't think canals and pig ponds have salmon.Does anyone know the answer to this? Why did they exclude rivers?
I'm guessing they had a very good reason at the time, I suspect it was due to river environment being a different kettle of fish to that of still waters and canals. Excuse the pun.
Maybe that same reason is why they're reluctant to change that now?
I think it’s a quirky legal thing. You own a lake or canal as a body of water and the ground under it. A river, you can own the banks but the water and everything therein you cannot. In simple terms, fish from lakes and canals are property where as those in rivers are wildlife. Something along those lines.I may be wrong, but i don't think canals and pig ponds have salmon.