Fined

[Andrew Boyne]

That apart, are you really sure that the fine the man got was in any way influenced by his 'alleged previous'....that the judge was even aware of those previous accusations, let alone prejudiced by them? I rather doubt it, as he probably has no idea who the man is...unless he is an angler himself. Not to mention the fact that the judge would be breaking the law himself, if he allowed those previous allegations to influence his actions in court. That those things may influence the thoughts of silly old fools like me really has no bearing on anything of any importance whatsoever, lol.

Fact is, I rather think that the fine he paid WAS in line with that paid by others in the same circumstances....so in that sense, why is it wrong? In what possible way is it wrong? It wasn't just a case of 'holding the wrong rod' was it Andrew....not really...although I wish I had thought of that rather splendid cliché....I love it

Cheers, Dave.

I never said the judge was influenced - i said the posters calling for a harsher penalty are. I think it was a fair punishment for the offence as i stated very early in the thread.

 

[Mark Anderson]

Hi men ,

In comparison with someone throwing a punch in a pub the fine was right , it ain't a hanging offence . What people are more aggrieved at is that it was for a mag article , where people benifit through sales , Bob does so through payment for it ,raising his profile , and potential for sponcership and guiding , that money coming from normal anglers !.

Close season ?, not 100% sure it's right , in fact I think it's poss out of date now . The local canal , and lakes iv fished in the close season ( its a choice for anglers , and many people I meet who shout about keeping the rivers closed do fish , a bit hypocritical realy) have showed no signs of problems , plenty of fish , spawning , and masses of bird life . In fact the local club who were against opening now say its the best thing they have done !. The don't get any extra revenue , so its not based on greed , but baliffing is better , and the June rush no longer happens with fishing spread out more .

Hatter

 

[David Gauntlett]

I never said the judge was influenced - i said the posters calling for a harsher penalty are. I think it was a fair punishment for the offence as i stated very early in the thread.

Fair point Andrew, I obviously misunderstood what you were saying...reading the above, then going back to previous posts, I do see where you are coming from. Getting slow in my old age mate

Cheers, Dave.

 

[Andrew Boyne]

too much christmas spirit Dave!

 

[David Gauntlett]

To much Christmas something Andrew. After I wrote that last, I went up into the loft to get some last minute Christmassy bits down....came back, saw that I had left my laptop switched on...and on the post I had sent...so sent it again! Altogether now.....All I want for Christmas is my two front lobes.....Oh very ruddy dear, lol.

 

[Richard Hamlyn]

If you consider also that the EA kill most of the fish eggs laid, and fry if any eggs manage to survive, on rivers where they weedcut and clean gravels(dredge and scrape the riverbed) each year; in the close season, then through the summer and autumn, then you realise why river fish stocks are in decline. Yes, there are a few other reasons and different species spawn at different times throughout the year, even on lakes. So shall we join in and help the EA continue killing and further the decline! Probably best to extend the current close season through to July-August, if any change is due, and bring back the close season on lakes as well! Clubs and fishery owners should either close fisheries when fish are spawning or add restrictions (no weighing or photogaphing etc) to protect their stocks...to which some do! Sorry, but most who wish to abolish the close season on rivers have a personal interest in doing so, or are unknowledgeable idiots and/or don't give a fuu dkge either way, and some are with commercial business money/profit orientated personal interests, with no respect for the fish at all.

Ray,

I have absolutely no doubt that your heart is in the right place, but do you not think that maybe you have been a little too close to one species and one river for too long to be objective? Most people do not like change, but like it or not change is actually constant. When they scrapped the close season on still waters the doomsayers were out in force stating their usual mantra’s that the fish stocks will be decimated, the birds will not nest successfully, the banks will be devastated, it’s all down to greedy owners etc etc .
Many years on and the reality does not bear out any of the above. In fact if anything the presence of anglers on the bank all year round helps to deter unwanted visitors and the steady supply of additional food going in benefits the fish and recruitment. Bird populations continue to change from one species to another but this has little relation to anglers. The wonderful Starling is struggling at the moment, and that nests nowhere near anglers, but the Kingfisher is doing rather well. Not a very good analogy I grant you but I hope you get the point. As to damage to vegetation; just how much room do you need for a day’s fishing? On one stretch of the Severn I fish if we were allowed to fish all year round then the small areas that we use to fish from would be kept under control while the rest of the riverbank would be free to follow the seasonal changes. With the close season each time we return in June the swims are totally overgrown and within the growth are a plethora of creatures which are then destroyed when we clear a way through again. It would be so much better if the growth was not there in the first place from the viewpoint of destruction of animal life.

Reading through the replies there seems to me to be a healthy majority who are in favour of either scrapping the close season or at least modifying it to be fit for purpose. These people are not “idiots†and they are not “unknowledgeable†and calling them so does not help angling as a whole.

I asked the subscribers to BFW to give me one reason to keep the close season that would stand up to scrutiny and there has not been a single argument other than getting the spare room decorated.

If you have a local issue on local water such as weed cutting then by all means try and do something about it, and if the evidence is on your side, you may even get support from others on this site. But calling people who take a reasoned approach to a given situation idiots will more than likely leave you isolated and alone.

 

[Robert Beal]

I have always supported the river close season and adhered to it as its the law , yeah have done odd session on lakes during it but am now beginning to think maybe it could be scrapped but with certain rules put in place , now while I can think of the following and people feel free to add to them the problem will be one of enforcement and that would be down to us to ensure we and others stick to them , here goes , first no fish to be retained in keepnets or such things , this in turn means no matches , common sense dictates that if you catch a fish with signs of been close to spawning or full of spawn returned without weighing or photographing , I returned a barbel last season at the beginning of august full of spawn without it even leaving the waters edge , A pet hate of mine is record fish that have been caught full of spawn , the tench one for a start , have read books and articles where the captor has moaned had I caught it last week it would have been a record or pb as would have still been full of spawn .Obviously the biggest plus to scrapping the close season would be anglers on the bank may curtail all the things effecting our sport , like the otter and commorant predation and but also our EE's from doing so too but only if were willing to police things ourselves.

Other than his other misdemeanors that have been brought to light since this incident its clear that he knew exactly what he was doing and desperation for a viable excuse , where of course there wasnt one , he came up with the clap trap we heard which I believe he didnt actually eventually use in court but as has been said already it was for financial gain for himself and the magazine involved , does anyone know if the said magazine has appologised as its clear either they or their employee also knew what they were doing .

 

[David Gauntlett]

With the close season each time we return in June the swims are totally overgrown and within the growth are a plethora of creatures which are then destroyed when we clear a way through again. It would be so much better if the growth was not there in the first place from the viewpoint of destruction of animal life.

Richard, you are clearly intelligent and do make some reasonable points, and I do find myself agreeing quite often with what you say....if not usually the way you say it

However, in my opinion, and dare I say it, that of many others, "clearing a swim" should involve the least possible disturbance to the bank side vegetation and wildlife, such disturbance being no more than that required to gain access. If the above is your idea of "clearing a swim".....then might I suggest that golf would give you more of the open spaces you seem to prefer

OK, the tongue WAS firmly fixed in cheek Richard, but it's Christmas...and I couldn't resist it

Cheers, Dave.

 

[Richard Hamlyn]

Richard, you are clearly intelligent and do make some reasonable points, and I do find myself agreeing quite often with what you say....if not usually the way you say it

However, in my opinion, and dare I say it, that of many others, "clearing a swim" should involve the least possible disturbance to the bank side vegetation and wildlife, such disturbance being no more than that required to gain access. If the above is your idea of "clearing a swim".....then might I suggest that golf would give you more of the open spaces you seem to prefer

OK, the tongue WAS firmly fixed in cheek Richard, but it's Christmas...and I couldn't resist it

Cheers, Dave.

Merry Christmas Mr G........I'm a bit like good caviar, something of an aquired taste............

 

[Howard Cooke]

Ray,

I have absolutely no doubt that your heart is in the right place, but do you not think that maybe you have been a little too close to one species and one river for too long to be objective? Most people do not like change, but like it or not change is actually constant. When they scrapped the close season on still waters the doomsayers were out in force stating their usual mantra’s that the fish stocks will be decimated, the birds will not nest successfully, the banks will be devastated, it’s all down to greedy owners etc etc .
Many years on and the reality does not bear out any of the above. In fact if anything the presence of anglers on the bank all year round helps to deter unwanted visitors and the steady supply of additional food going in benefits the fish and recruitment. Bird populations continue to change from one species to another but this has little relation to anglers. The wonderful Starling is struggling at the moment, and that nests nowhere near anglers, but the Kingfisher is doing rather well. Not a very good analogy I grant you but I hope you get the point. As to damage to vegetation; just how much room do you need for a day’s fishing? On one stretch of the Severn I fish if we were allowed to fish all year round then the small areas that we use to fish from would be kept under control while the rest of the riverbank would be free to follow the seasonal changes. With the close season each time we return in June the swims are totally overgrown and within the growth are a plethora of creatures which are then destroyed when we clear a way through again. It would be so much better if the growth was not there in the first place from the viewpoint of destruction of animal life.

Reading through the replies there seems to me to be a healthy majority who are in favour of either scrapping the close season or at least modifying it to be fit for purpose. These people are not “idiots†and they are not “unknowledgeable†and calling them so does not help angling as a whole.

I asked the subscribers to BFW to give me one reason to keep the close season that would stand up to scrutiny and there has not been a single argument other than getting the spare room decorated.

If you have a local issue on local water such as weed cutting then by all means try and do something about it, and if the evidence is on your side, you may even get support from others on this site. But calling people who take a reasoned approach to a given situation idiots will more than likely leave you isolated and alone.

You promote the need for fact and logic in any analysis and you do so with a fair degree of arrogance. So that does make it doubly important that you are sure of your own "facts" and they can be fully supported by robust evidence derived from extensive research. Otherwise you are in danger of looking like a bit of an idiot yourself. So, are you quite sure about the Kingfisher? I had understood that they are generally in decline (but may be doing OK in some places) and part of the problem is, well, people, and the disruption we can cause to their natural habitat.
Ray or others will no doubt correct me on this and agree that you have your facts correct.

 

[Richard Hamlyn]

Howard,

The key to Kingfisher populations is weather not anglers. Generaly speaking the less rain we have the better as they can catch fish much easier in clear than coloured water. Also recent floods have swamped many nest burrows so 2012 has so far not been too good. However the bulk of the Kingfisher population live on relativly small streams so they will survive just fine.

I hope that was not too arrogant for you.................

 

[Howard Cooke]

Howard,

The key to Kingfisher populations is weather not anglers. Generaly speaking the less rain we have the better as they can catch fish much easier in clear than coloured water. Also recent floods have swamped many nest burrows so 2012 has so far not been too good. However the bulk of the Kingfisher population live on relativly small streams so they will survive just fine.

I hope that was not too arrogant for you.................

Well according to the RSPB the key reason for the decline in their numbers since the 1970's (ie not thriving or doing well) is river pollution so not sure you have it right as that might be the fault of us humans. Weather is also a factor of course as is disruption to their natural riverside habitat (humans again!). From a conservation perspective they are also on the RSPB amber list. I think it might be regarded as arrogant if you challenged the view of the RSPB on such matters.

 

[Graham Elliott]

I like the close season on rivers.

I like watching the barbel spawn undisturbed by someone getting excited at the fish showing and foul hooking a few...by mistake.

The dates of it will never be right. Because of a thing called "weather"

I also like to visit those places that don't have a well used footpath next to them and see the re growth of the bankside vegetation and the cover for the fish.

I also like the seasons start, where the less wary fish give one a few catches for starters. But then again. I'm quite old.

Graham

 

[Ian Crook]

Well according to the RSPB the key reason for the decline in their numbers since the 1970's (ie not thriving or doing well) is river pollution so not sure you have it right as that might be the fault of us humans. Weather is also a factor of course as is disruption to their natural riverside habitat (humans again!). From a conservation perspective they are also on the RSPB amber list. I think it might be regarded as arrogant if you challenged the view of the RSPB on such matters.

I cannot believe any right minded person would consider the UK rivers more polluted now than the 70s, biggest problem with many is they are too clean, ie not enough nutrients!

 

[Howard Cooke]

I cannot believe any right minded person would consider the UK rivers more polluted now than the 70s, biggest problem with many is they are too clean, ie not enough nutrients!

I don't think anyone is saying that. I also don't believe that we could claim that the river system is as we would like it to be (for all the various reasons frequently mentioned in all manner of related threads on this forum by folk more knowledgable than me). The original point here was that, according to the RSPB, Kingfishers have been in general decline since the 70's and a key reason is river pollution (there are others-weather in particular and availability of food). Rivers still suffer pollution don't they- for one reason or another? And presumably, although I can't claim to be any kind of expert, Kingfishers are particularly sensitive to polluting events because of their position in the food chain.

Anyway, the start of all this was Richard's original statement of "fact" that Kingfishers are now doing well which I do not believe is the case.

 

[Keith Speer]

Being old (like graham) I too like the close season and for the same reasons Graham states, but I think there is another reason to keep the close season and that is just to give everything a rest, in particular the fish.

The close season for lakes and such was removed for reasons of greed and nothing else, I know in this modern world it is OK to do everything for money and profit, BUT there is more to life than monetary value.




As for the excuse that Bob James offered, I am afraid I just do not accept that an angler of his standing can make that sort of mistake, I have worked in sales for years, I know Bull-poo when I see and hear it.

If I fished in the close season I would expect to be slaughtered, for me it is utterly bad form.

I know little of what went on when he was at the ACA, everything I know comes third hand and as I understand it there were never any charges made so therefore James never had the opportunity to defend himself, if I were in that situation I would want a formal charge made so that I could be vigorous in my defence.
The fact that it was all “swept under the carpet†does speak for it ‘self to a certain extent.

One thing I do know, is that I will NEVER be able to take anything he says or does in future seriously!


What a silly boy he is!

 

[Tony Rocca]

Richard,
Biggest problem here is that you are asking for reasons to keep the close, we dont have to justify it as it is as it is..... (I liked that)............ Whats the justification for doing away with it other than that you could go fishing on rivers more? Just selfish if you ask me, more, more, more.

Edit.......... As Keith has just said too.

 

[David Gauntlett]

Richard,
Biggest problem here is that you are asking for reasons to keep the close, we dont have to justify it as it is as it is..... (I liked that)............ Whats the justification for doing away with it other than that you could go fishing on rivers more? Just selfish if you ask me, more, more, more.

Edit.......... As Keith has just said too.

Like Graham said...and Keith said....and Tony said.....except for the bit where he stuttered a lot

Cheers, Dave

 

[Clive Kenyon]

I cannot believe any right minded person would consider the UK rivers more polluted now than the 70s, biggest problem with many is they are too clean, ie not enough nutrients!

Steel City Grayling.f4v - YouTube

 

[Neil Smart]

I cannot believe any right minded person would consider the UK rivers more polluted now than the 70s, biggest problem with many is they are too clean, ie not enough nutrients!

Spot on Ian, especially the 'too clean' comment, I think in a perverse way with our cleaner rivers have seen a decline in fish population, especially with Roach.