• 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...

The Angling Trust.

Martin James said:
Graham I wasn’t getting at anyone just giving my view, I’m the first to respect other people’s views, even if I don’t personally agree with them that’s called democracy, If anglers don’t want to support AT they can of course support Fish Legal, a strange name, I would like to see it called The Pollution Fighters which I feel would attract a lot of non-anglers as the ACA did. Regards Martin
Click to expand...


Never crossed my mind Martin, boring world if we all thought the same.
 
Martin James said:
Graham I wasn’t getting at anyone just giving my view, I’m the first to respect other people’s views, even if I don’t personally agree with them that’s called democracy, If anglers don’t want to support AT they can of course support Fish Legal, a strange name, I would like to see it called The Pollution Fighters which I feel would attract a lot of non-anglers as the ACA did. Regards Martin
Click to expand...

Poo Fighters Martin?
 
Joe Winstanley said:
It is only for reasons regarding corporate governance that the AT and FL are technically two organisations, and that is really all it is, a technicality.

You say that the AT is 'political'. Good! That is exactly what we need them to be. Many would say, myself included, that the AT are not nearly political enough. Surely you are long enough in the tooth Graham to appreciate that nearly every single issue that poses a threat to our rivers and waterways is rooted in politics - angling does not exist in an isolated bubble. No water company has ever set out to deliberately cause pollution, no housing developer ever built on a floodplain with the intention of exacerbating peak flows, no water company has ever extracted water from a river deliberately to reduce river flows, no farmer has ever deliberately set out to cause diffuse pollution - the fact these things happen and are allowed to happen is rooted in a series of dreadful Government policies dating back decades. Politics is at the centre of it whether you like it or not. Fish Legal do a brilliant job, but the long-term goal surely has to ensure that these incidents don't happen in the first instance. To some extent, one of the long-term goal of the AT must be to make the work Fish-Legal surplus to requirements? (And I do appreciate that we are currently light years away from that happening).

Anglers and other interest groups who care about the freshwater environment need to be as ruthless and as well organised as the political lobbyists who serve the interests of big agri-business, developers and the hedge funds who control our water companies. And the politicians who set our policies need to be rigorously held to account - the Angling Trust has the potential to provide a medium for this, but it can only do so if anglers are prepared to get behind it. You don't have to agree with everything they do, I know I certainly don't, it is unlikely that I ever will.

There is nothing to stop AT members from taking the AT to task when they are not happy with the direction the AT are taking. In fact in its in the AT's best interests that members do hold it to account and ensure their views are heard. All AT members can attend the annual AGM which provides a opportunity for members to air concerns from the floor, there is also the opportunity to do the same at the regional meetings and forums. Mark Lloyd and other board members and trustees can also be emailed directly. Let them know how ****ed-off you are, they need to hear it.

Re EIR - yes some water companies may still be withholding some information, but now, thanks to the AT/FL, that is now against the law and action can be taken. It would be naive to expect the EIR case to have suddenly stopped water companies causing pollution over night - most of which is diffuse in nature rather then than specifically point source. I don't think anybody expected that to happen, but unquestionably the EIR case is a big step in the right direction in helping the likes of the AT and Rivers Trusts get a better handle on water quality issues in specific catchments.

The Building Bridges Project only started around 4-5 years ago - it is unrealistic to expect the EE poaching situation to have miraculously ceased in that time. I'm sorry to hear of your bad experience - but is it really fair to judge the success of the project because of that bad experience?

I have seen some examples that the message is getting across. A good example being a photo I was sent on Saturday by a friend of mine who was fishing the tidal trent. A Polish angler who had been fishing the peg below him had landed a salmon (approx. 10lb) whilst lure fishing for Pike. He asked if my mate could take a picture for him, he handled the fish impeccably and was equipped with all the correct paraphernalia (decent landing net unhooking hat, forceps etc), and went to great lengths to ensure the fish had recovered properly. Would that have happened 10 years ago? I'm not so sure.

PS - you can make a donation to Fish Legal without any money going to the AT.

Anyway - I'm off fishing, the conditions look bang-on:)
Click to expand...

Excellent post Joe
 
Graham Young said:
Yes i am long enough in the false :) tooth to realise that Joe, the ones that are not are almost always to do with money as is very plain from the Powick weir debacle *** but that's a different thing for another day.

I agree that the trust has the potential to hold large organisations to account but to be able to do that they must have clean hands and i am afraid they just don't, taking money from who they did was a huge mistake but they have repeated the mistake, why because there was no one else? sooner not have it than compromise the integrity that is so vital.

All the Eastern European anglers i have met have not been of the poaching/fish killing sort indeed lots are wrongly tarred with the same brush as those that are, there is a polish chap and his son that fish my club still water when they first fished it they went to great lengths to make sure everyone knew they practised catch and release they shouldn't have to do that. my point about the Building Bridges programme is that there is a large number of EEs that know what they do is wrong/illegal they also know that the chances of getting caught are very small, imo the money would have been better spent on publicising those that fish legally more and not on educating those that don't want to be educated.

Yes i know i can make a donation to Fish Legal but i wont until i can be absolutely sure that it went to them and not elsewhere and i am afraid that at the moment i cant be.

Good luck for your session.

*** it would appear that its not for a different day, there is some very disturbing reading on the Save Powick Weir facebook page today involving the trust.
Click to expand...

I wish I had stayed in and watched the football Graham.

Re Powick Weir - can you expand on that? All I can find is the statement that the AT released a month ago, one which seems quite sensible to me: http://anglingtrust.net/news.asp?section=29&sectiontitle=angling trust news&itemid=3451
 
Martin James said:
Graham I wasn’t getting at anyone just giving my view, I’m the first to respect other people’s views, even if I don’t personally agree with them that’s called democracy, If anglers don’t want to support AT they can of course support Fish Legal, a strange name, I would like to see it called The Pollution Fighters which I feel would attract a lot of non-anglers as the ACA did. Regards Martin
Click to expand...

I agree Fish Legal is a strange name, and your right that a name change could encourage lots of non-anglers to join up. I like 'Pollution Fighters', but it doesn't really cover issue such as water abstraction and inappropriate development.
 
Joe Winstanley said:
I wish I had stayed in and watched the football Graham.

Re Powick Weir - can you expand on that? All I can find is the statement that the AT released a month ago, one which seems quite sensible to me: http://anglingtrust.net/news.asp?section=29&sectiontitle=angling trust news&itemid=3451
Click to expand...

Put simply Joe the trust have said that they cannot have any dialogue with the EA because of comments made on the Save Powick Weir facebook page which has now been changed to a secret page to prevent shall we say "outside influences" being able to see post, in essence the trust have abandoned the group, its very disturbing that the trust has gone this way but then they probably don't want to upset their paymasters and the EA/SRT will carry on and receive a £20 million grant under the guise of saving the shad that has been getting over weirs and spawning quiet happily for hundreds of years.

All in all it bloody stinks and the trust should be ashamed of themselves.

There is a thread on here about the weirs removal but I cant get a link to work but a search for powick weir will bring the thread up

Edited to add that the trusts statement using your link now looks very silly.
 
Graham Young said:
Put simply Joe the trust have said that they cannot have any dialogue with the EA because of comments made on the Save Powick Weir facebook page which has now been changed to a secret page to prevent shall we say "outside influences" being able to see post, in essence the trust have abandoned the group, its very disturbing that the trust has gone this way but then they probably don't want to upset their paymasters and the EA/SRT will carry on and receive a £20 million grant under the guise of saving the shad that has been getting over weirs and spawning quiet happily for hundreds of years.

All in all it bloody stinks and the trust should be ashamed of themselves.

There is a thread on here about the weirs removal but I cant get a link to work but a search for powick weir will bring the thread up

Edited to add that the trusts statement using your link now looks very silly.
Click to expand...

So if I understand you correctly Graham, the Angling Trust have said they cannot continue to engage with the EA in dialogue re Powick Weir, because of some comments posted on Facebook? That does sound very strange, and leads me to ask the following:

- have the AT issued a statement on this?
- what exactly was posted on Facebook and by whom?

Cheers,

Joe
 
Joe Winstanley said:
So if I understand you correctly Graham, the Angling Trust have said they cannot continue to engage with the EA in dialogue re Powick Weir, because of some comments posted on Facebook? That does sound very strange, and leads me to ask the following:

- have the AT issued a statement on this?
- what exactly was posted on Facebook and by whom?

Cheers,

Joe
Click to expand...

They have said that if the SPW page is involved they cannot continue dialogue with the EA because of remarks made on the page, I haven't seen anything on there that wasn't either the honest opinion of the poster or speculation caused by the none openness of the EA.

If it wasn't for the lads that started the page none of the meetings between clubs who's waters will be affected and the EA would have taken place, the trust were very slow to decide to get involved and now this has happened, its a disgrace that has caused resignations of members from the trust.

I cannot help but feel that this is going to be disastrous for the river and its wildlife all in the name of the Shad but the real reason imo is £20million grant from the EU.

If there has been a statement by the trust I haven't seen one.
 
Graham Young said:
T

I cannot help but feel that this is going to be disastrous for the river and its wildlife all in the name of the Shad but the real reason imo is £20million grant from the EU.


The weir in Powick is a man made obstacle, as are all weirs, but the plight of the Shad is important to a lot of folk, including me. Besides there is no evidence to table that the removal of such obstructions will impact in a negative way for all species of fish/wildlife. Now I would love the Teme to return to the Barbel filled river it once was, or is that just being selfish? There has to be balance, and if we were to be honest there were just too many Barbel in the River.

For me , and I may be wrong, I think the negative impact on the proposed removal has been over exaggerated, I believe the real problem the Teme faces is low water levels, over the years the levels have dropped considerably, that was borne out by a fellow Angler I was speaking to recently, who as a kid never saw the Teme run so low as it does now, surely as Anglers we can see that as the main problem?

I now that some that some well respected Anglers, and no less than Lol Breakspear will not agree, but as I said the removal of these man made objects will I hope enhance the Teme.


And if the Shad numbers improve, well that alone would be worth it.
Click to expand...
 
Neil Smart said:
Graham Young said:
T

I cannot help but feel that this is going to be disastrous for the river and its wildlife all in the name of the Shad but the real reason imo is £20million grant from the EU.


The weir in Powick is a man made obstacle, as are all weirs, but the plight of the Shad is important to a lot of folk, including me. Besides there is no evidence to table that the removal of such obstructions will impact in a negative way for all species of fish/wildlife. Now I would love the Teme to return to the Barbel filled river it once was, or is that just being selfish? There has to be balance, and if we were to be honest there were just too many Barbel in the River.

For me , and I may be wrong, I think the negative impact on the proposed removal has been over exaggerated, I believe the real problem the Teme faces is low water levels, over the years the levels have dropped considerably, that was borne out by a fellow Angler I was speaking to recently, who as a kid never saw the Teme run so low as it does now, surely as Anglers we can see that as the main problem?

I now that some that some well respected Anglers, and no less than Lol Breakspear will not agree, but as I said the removal of these man made objects will I hope enhance the Teme.


And if the Shad numbers improve, well that alone would be worth it.
Click to expand...



Bournemouth university have done a study that has shown that Shad have been successfully spawning below the weir for a long time, correct me I am wrong but will the shad not have to have passed other man made obstacles? It would be ironic if the grounds used now by the shad are destroyed by this action. Imo the shad is a front to obtain the £20 million grant from the EU.

The EA have already admitted that levels above the weir will fall up to 1.5 metres when the weir is demolished, a drop in the level of that size will have an effect on all wildlife I would think, can the river survive a drop of that size?

Just one other thing, the EA have already dismissed the idea of a fish pass as "to expensive"
Click to expand...
 
Graham Young said:
Neil Smart said:
Bournemouth university have done a study that has shown that Shad have been successfully spawning below the weir for a long time, correct me I am wrong but will the shad not have to have passed other man made obstacles? It would be ironic if the grounds used now by the shad are destroyed by this action. Imo the shad is a front to obtain the £20 million grant from the EU.

The EA have already admitted that levels above the weir will fall up to 1.5 metres when the weir is demolished, a drop in the level of that size will have an effect on all wildlife I would think, can the river survive a drop of that size?

Just one other thing, the EA have already dismissed the idea of a fish pass as "to expensive"
Click to expand...
The Shad do need to navigate to the headwaters of the Teme to be a real success, the drop in levels have also inhibited the passage of Barbel, don't forget Barbel need to navigate upstream too to the spawning Redds.
Mmm fish pass's ...do the actually work? I have my doubts, yes I have seen EA footage of Salmon passing through, but by and large I feel they are just a 'sooth sayer'
That supposed drop of 1.5 meters is a wild claim, and doesn't have any substance whatsoever.
The real problem I feel lies elsewhere, abstraction, bank erosian, and farming techniques, throw in the odd Otter, and pressure from Angling, there is a lot more to look at apart from just one Weir.

£20m Shad? Sorry I don't think so.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
Neil Smart said:
Graham Young said:
The Shad do need to navigate to the headwaters of the Teme to be a real success, the drop in levels have also inhibited the passage of Barbel, don't forget Barbel need to navigate upstream too to the spawning Redds.
Mmm fish pass's ...do the actually work? I have my doubts, yes I have seen EA footage of Salmon passing through, but by and large I feel they are just a 'sooth sayer'
That supposed drop of 1.5 meters is a wild claim, and doesn't have any substance whatsoever.
The real problem I feel lies elsewhere, abstraction, bank erosian, and farming techniques, throw in the odd Otter, and pressure from Angling, there is a lot more to look at apart from just one Weir.

£20m Shad? Sorry I don't think so.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...



The wild claim you speak of is one that has been claimed by the EA not the group.

Fish passes "just a sooth sayer", you must have changed your opinions since you posted this

Considering somebody spits in Telford it floods here in Tewkesbury, I don't think this proposal will make a lot of difference. But it does seem it's already been decided to remove, and the main subject to discuss is a fish pass!! But I hope to be there at the meeting.

This is my last post on this in answer to you as I don't wish it to degenerate into a he said she said affair.
Click to expand...
 
Graham Young said:
Neil Smart said:
The wild claim you speak of is one that has been claimed by the EA not the group.

Fish passes "just a sooth sayer", you must have changed your opinions since you posted this

Considering somebody spits in Telford it floods here in Tewkesbury, I don't think this proposal will make a lot of difference. But it does seem it's already been decided to remove, and the main subject to discuss is a fish pass!! But I hope to be there at the meeting.

This is my last post on this in answer to you as I don't wish it to degenerate into a he said she said affair.
Click to expand...

I was sceptical about the pass then, as I am now, but why so defensive over what is a considered reply, we all have the same common interest at heart...the Teme, however I am sure it is not all about Powick Weir. But 10/10 for digging out some post I made way back, I wouldn't have known where to find it.
I don't wish to fall out with you, I really think we need to have all view points discussed, and I cant think a better platform than here, but we do need to be open minded and not just see one item to be the problem. I did say that both Shad and Barbel need to migrate, surely this is crucial to any discussion concerning any weir removals?
I don't really think fish passes are the answer, to reiterate.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top