• 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...

What's going to work? Team work!

David Gauntlett said:
However, the reality of that situation is that the stretch shown on the video is a showcase effort. As Andrew said, it does show what can be done if everyone joins together and gets stuck in....but that is not surprising, because that is what it was intended to do. The problem is, if the costs involved in achieving these splendid results on this tiny seven kilometer stretch were disclosed....it would probably instantly become obvious that with the best will in the world, such wonderful works have less than a snowballs chance in hell of becoming common practice on all rivers nationwide.
Click to expand...

Unless . . we can tap into the funds of the likes of the RSPB, English Nature etc. Make them our allies not our enemies and we'll get more done faster. Neither are interested in a cull on predators because they understand they play an important roll in a healthy river system. Fix the system and the flora and fauna will sort themselves out. In some cases the resultant river might be slightly different to our short term memory but it will be better for it. I say we should all ( and I know this will never happen ) drop the campaigns regarding Cormorants, Otters and Seals and focus all our efforts into fixing the river system. We all want cleaner healthier rivers so lets all fight together - alongside the RSPB, English Nature and every other body that has an interest in our freshwater ecology.
Off topic from this thread but in line with predation I read a report yesterday regarding the decline in roach stocks on the middle and upper Wensum system, something Cormorants have almost unanimously been blamed for by the angling world - including the much respected J.Wilson. Experts realised something was wrong with this theory - there were good stocks in the tidal river, yet major decline in the middle and upper river. Why didn't the Cormorants eat the Roach in the tidal stretches? Further more the middle and upper river have good stocks of Dace. Why didn't the Cormorants eat those? The report concludes that the decline in Roach stocks is largely due to Phosphate stripping at water treatment plants. Phosphates promote algae which in turn supports zoo plankton and both are primary food sources for Roach. Let's drop the predation thing for a while eh? See if we can get those well funded chaps at the RSPB on our side.
 
Hi Andrew...would you be kind enough to provide a link to the report you are referring to on the problems caused by phosphate stripping on the Wensum please ?

Cheers, Dave.
 
I think getting into bed with the RSPB would be a dangerous thing to do, they have shown in the past that they do not like angling, they have purchased land with a fishery on it and then stopped fishing, I fear they would be quite happy to go along with anglers until they got what they wanted and then drop us like a hot potato, they have a much more powerful voice than angling will ever have and are not to be trusted.

Natural England, isn't that the organisation that refused a licence to remove "the seal" when it was trapped in a lock? and also didn't believe that fish stocks were being damaged by it.

As for the RSPB not wanting to cull predators (there are other ways to control them) they had no such views when a massive cull of the Ruddy duck was undertaken, they don't want Cormorants controlled full stop and have fought against it all along, the otter seems to be a large part of their PR nowadays although they will and have been killing water birds, they have ignored this in public as I see it because they know it will bring extra revenue in to them.

Cormorants, Otters and Gooseanders are not all that is wrong with our rivers by a long chalk but to ignore them in favour of getting into bed with the RSPB for the sake of their money would IMO be folly. as would ignoring the fact that all of them have done damage to our fish stocks at a time they could least stand it.
 
Graham Young said

"I think getting into bed with the RSPB would be a dangerous thing to do, they have shown in the past that they do not like angling, they have purchased land with a fishery on it and then stopped fishing,"


They certainly have stopped fishing on one of my favourite local lakes after purchasing it. So I have to agree with the point regards this.

Graham
 
When you look back over the past over problems there have been with Anglers and waterfowl its no wonder the RSPB are anti angling .

The problems years ago with lead shot and Swans , Discarded line and hooks left on banks .
Litter and rubbish not taken home etc etc . Is it little wonder the RSPB dont like us ? At times we are own worst enemy ?
 
Agree about problems caused by anglers with litter, it is a pet hate of mine, however the RSPB don't like angling just because of that, they don't like us for several reasons, one being the call for a cull on predators, they are so clever they wont blame cats for killing millions of wild birds every year but still sell a device for keeping cats out of your garden. they are IMO not to be trusted and are only interested in what benefits themselves and their revenue from membership.
 
David Gauntlett said:
Hi Andrew...would you be kind enough to provide a link to the report you are referring to on the problems caused by phosphate stripping on the Wensum please ?

Cheers, Dave.
Click to expand...

Dave,

I think this may be the paper that Andrew is referring to:

core.kmi.open.ac.uk/download/pdf/9636825.pdf‎

It is an interesting read, I don't know if it was submitted for peer-review or not.

Cheers,

Joe
 
Andrew Boyne said:
Unless . . we can tap into the funds of the likes of the RSPB, English Nature etc. Make them our allies not our enemies and we'll get more done faster. Neither are interested in a cull on predators because they understand they play an important roll in a healthy river system. Fix the system and the flora and fauna will sort themselves out. In some cases the resultant river might be slightly different to our short term memory but it will be better for it. I say we should all ( and I know this will never happen ) drop the campaigns regarding Cormorants, Otters and Seals and focus all our efforts into fixing the river system. We all want cleaner healthier rivers so lets all fight together - alongside the RSPB, English Nature and every other body that has an interest in our freshwater ecology.
Off topic from this thread but in line with predation I read a report yesterday regarding the decline in roach stocks on the middle and upper Wensum system, something Cormorants have almost unanimously been blamed for by the angling world - including the much respected J.Wilson. Experts realised something was wrong with this theory - there were good stocks in the tidal

river, yet major decline in the middle and upper river. Why didn't the Cormorants eat the Roach in the tidal stretches? Further more the middle and upper river have good stocks of Dace. Why didn't the Cormorants eat those? The report concludes that the decline in Roach stocks is largely due to Phosphate stripping at water treatment plants. Phosphates promote algae which in turn supports zoo plankton and both are primary food sources for Roach. Let's drop the predation thing for a while eh? See if we can get those well funded chaps at the RSPB on our side.
Click to expand...

Andrew,

In the main I agree with your points. Ultimately anglers and the NGO's that you mention probably agree on more things than they disagree with.

Even these austere times there is plenty of money that can be tapped into for for freshwater conservation projects such pillar 2 CAP funding, WFD funding, HLF etc.
 
Graham Young said:
Agree about problems caused by anglers with litter, it is a pet hate of mine, however the RSPB don't like angling just because of that, they don't like us for several reasons, one being the call for a cull on predators, they are so clever they wont blame cats for killing millions of wild birds every year but still sell a device for keeping cats out of your garden. they are IMO not to be trusted and are only interested in what benefits themselves and their revenue from membership.
Click to expand...

Graham,

I don't believe that the RSPB are anti-angling. That's certainly not my experience of dealing with them and bare in mind that the Royal Charter means that the RSPB must retain a neutral stance on legitimate field sports.

RSPB Policy:

'As an organisation, The Society’s Royal Charter makes it clear that we maintain a strictly neutral position in regard to legitimate field sports (including shooting). Where such sports can be shown to have benefit to habitat conservation and the conservation of biodiversity, the RSPB will support such conservation action.'

'Where such sports, even though legitimate, are acting against the interests of conservation, the RSPB will speak out against such practices'.

That doesn't strike me as a policy statement of an organisation that is anti-angling. Furthermore, it is the RSPB's right to do as it pleases with the reserves that they own and manage, we are not exactly short of freshwater fisheries in the UK are we ? I welcome having a good balance of rivers/meres etc that do not get fished and are subject to less disturbance. Fishing rights are not inalienable, they never have been and they never will be. Personally I don't have an issue with that.
 
Joe have you read any of the anti angling stuff on the web, quite an eye opener. they care not one jot for angling and I would never trust them.
 
Graham Young said:
Joe have you read any of the anti angling stuff on the web, quite an eye opener. they care not one jot for angling and I would never trust them.
Click to expand...

Graham,

I prefer to stay clear of the myopic internet rantings of angling's lunatic fringe. I try base my opinions on facts and my own personal experience of dealing with rspb staff, not once I have ever heard an rspb employee express any angling sentiments.

The rspb as an organisation is pro-wildlife, which naturally means they are pro-cormorant and pro-otter, and prefer to devote its landholdings exclusively to nature conservation - that does not mean that they are anti-angling.

I am sure that there are some rpsb staff that are anti-angling, it would be odd if there wasn't but I do know a number of rspb employees that are keen fisherman, one of whom occasional posts on this site. I don't think these people would work for an organisation that was anti their favourite pastime.

cheers,

Joe
 
Last edited:
Joe Winstanley said:
Graham,

I prefer to stay clear of the myopic internet rantings of angling's lunatic fringe. I try base my opinions on facts and my own personal experience of dealing with rspb staff, not once I have ever heard an rspb employee express any angling sentiments.

An an organisation is pro-wildlife, which naturally means they are pro-cormorant and pro-otter, and prefers to devote its landholdings exclusively to nature conservation - that does not mean that they are anti-angling.

I am sure that there are some rpsb staff that are anti-angling, it would be odd if there wasn't but I do know a number of rspb employees that are keen fisherman, one of whom occasional posts on this site. I don't think these people would work for an organisation that was anti their favourite pastime.

cheers,

Joe
Click to expand...




Who are "anglings lunatic fringe" ? it might be that they have different views to your own Joe, one things for sure I would sooner have listened to the late Dr Barry Rickards when it came to the RSPB, surely he wasn't one of the lunatic fringe? do you not think that other anglers have based their views on their dealings with them as you have ? you may never have heard an RSPB employee say anything about anglers but there has been plenty said by their members.

I am not saying all members/employees of the RSPB are anti angling that would be daft, but as an organisation I don't trust them.
 
Graham Elliott said:
Graham Young said

"I think getting into bed with the RSPB would be a dangerous thing to do, they have shown in the past that they do not like angling, they have purchased land with a fishery on it and then stopped fishing,"


They certainly have stopped fishing on one of my favourite local lakes after purchasing it. So I have to agree with the point regards this.

Graham
Click to expand...

So if the public face of the RSPB is not anti angling ? Then why as Graham states they stopped fishing on one of his favorite lakes ?

What is said in public is different to what is said in private and of the record .
 
Graham Young said:
I think getting into bed with the RSPB would be a dangerous thing to do, they have shown in the past that they do not like angling, they have purchased land with a fishery on it and then stopped fishing, I fear they would be quite happy to go along with anglers until they got what they wanted and then drop us like a hot potato, they have a much more powerful voice than angling will ever have and are not to be trusted.

Natural England, isn't that the organisation that refused a licence to remove "the seal" when it was trapped in a lock? and also didn't believe that fish stocks were being damaged by it.

As for the RSPB not wanting to cull predators (there are other ways to control them) they had no such views when a massive cull of the Ruddy duck was undertaken, they don't want Cormorants controlled full stop and have fought against it all along, the otter seems to be a large part of their PR nowadays although they will and have been killing water birds, they have ignored this in public as I see it because they know it will bring extra revenue in to them.

Cormorants, Otters and Gooseanders are not all that is wrong with our rivers by a long chalk but to ignore them in favour of getting into bed with the RSPB for the sake of their money would IMO be folly. as would ignoring the fact that all of them have done damage to our fish stocks at a time they could least stand it.
Click to expand...

Graham,

Spot on post. There are many organizations that we could "team up" with thinking that it would make us stronger and only when it was too late would we discover their true agenda's to our cost.

We are anglers; we do not have to justify this to anyone. We stick hooks in fishes mouths and pull them out of the water for our own sport and gratification........we do not need to apologies to anyone for this and we do not need to ally ourselves to other organizations that might find the above distasteful.

Steve
 
In 2007 the RSPB controlled 202 sites, of these the RSPB said angling was feasible ( no idea how they work out where is and isn't) on 50 sites, of the 50 sites fishing was allowed on just 19, doesn't seem that angler friendly to me.
Anyone know the situation now?

As Joe said what said to the public ( and some of that isn't very nice ) and what's said in private might be very different. IMO the RSPB would not want to risk loosing revenue from members that are also anglers.
 
Graham Young said:
Who are "anglings lunatic fringe" ? it might be that they have different views to your own Joe, one things for sure I would sooner have listened to the late Dr Barry Rickards when it came to the RSPB, surely he wasn't one of the lunatic fringe? do you not think that other anglers have based their views on their dealings with them as you have ? you may never have heard an RSPB employee say anything about anglers but there has been plenty said by their members.

I am not saying all members/employees of the RSPB are anti angling that would be daft, but as an organisation I don't trust them.
Click to expand...

Graham,

I am of course referring to those whinge bags that reject evidence and peer-reviewed hard empirical data and instead base their arguments on hearsay, second hand anecdotes and other uninformed tittle-tattle that they pick-up from their fellow armchair fishery experts. The ones that are happy to slag-off the work of other organisations but never actually get up of their own backsides to do anything constructive.

Do I place the late Dr Barry Rickards in this category ?, of course of not. As both a fisheries scientist and an angler he was a man that I held (and still hold) in very high regard, however I don't share his view on the RSPB. I assume that you are referring to the article that he wrote in 2007 on FM ?

Tribute to Barrie Rickards - RSPB & Cormorants

Whilst you always have to respect to the views of someone as knowledgeable as Barry Rickards, this article was not, imho, his finest hour. Clearly upset at the rspb choosing not to allow angling on 81% of their reserves he seems to view this purely through the prism of an angler (not entirely surprising) and took the view that just because they decided to exclude angling from these newly acquired reserves they were automatically anti-angling. He doesn't mention some of the other activities that the rspb have in the past banned from some of their reserves (cycling for instance)...are the rspb anti-cycling ? Do they wish to see cycling banned ?

The article also contains some strange comments which are demonstrably untrue, take this one:

'The RSPB claimed that their participation in ‘The Blueprint for Water’ shows their pro-angling credentials. It doesn’t. It shows that after many decades of doing nothing about water they have finally put their name to something'

I'm not sure why he would state this, as a fisheries scientist he will have been well aware of the numerous the rspb water related projects and research in the previous 10 years, which would include the following reports:

- Water wise (1995)

- 'Wise Use of Floodplains Project' which started in 1999. See here: http://ecrr.org/publication/decmak_doc1.pdf

- High and Dry: the impact on wildlife of taking too much water from our environment (1996)

- Practical Implications of Introducing Tradeable permits for Water Abstraction: Report for the RSPB by Cranfield University and Middlesex University (1997)

- LEAP forward for wildlife; promoting biodiversity through Local Environment Agency Plans (2000)

- Managing EC inshore fisheries: time for change (2000)

- Water wise? A dividend for wildlife? (Oct 2003)

How many published reports on diffuse pollution / water abstraction / riparian management were published by the coarse fishing sector during this time period ? Any guesses ?

It strikes me that the bird lobby has done more to fight the real issues facing our fisheries than the angling sector has ever done. To my mind that is a disgraceful situation and one that shames us all. The situation needs to change and this brings us back the Andy's point - look what can by done when everyone works together. Or we anglers could continue to carry on as we are, looking inward, rejecting any opportunities for partnership. How's that working out for us by the way ?
 
Joe Winstanley said:
Graham,

I am of course referring to those whinge bags that reject evidence and peer-reviewed hard empirical data and instead base their arguments on hearsay, second hand anecdotes and other uninformed tittle-tattle that they pick-up from their fellow armchair fishery experts. The ones that are happy to slag-off the work of other organisations but never actually get up of their own backsides to do anything constructive.

Do I place the late Dr Barry Rickards in this category ?, of course of not. As both a fisheries scientist and an angler he was a man that I held (and still hold) in very high regard, however I don't share his view on the RSPB. I assume that you are referring to the article that he wrote in 2007 on FM ?

Tribute to Barrie Rickards - RSPB & Cormorants

Whilst you always have to respect to the views of someone as knowledgeable as Barry Rickards, this article was not, imho, his finest hour. Clearly upset at the rspb choosing not to allow angling on 81% of their reserves he seems to view this purely through the prism of an angler (not entirely surprising) and took the view that just because they decided to exclude angling from these newly acquired reserves they were automatically anti-angling. He doesn't mention some of the other activities that the rspb have in the past banned from some of their reserves (cycling for instance)...are the rspb anti-cycling ? Do they wish to see cycling banned ?

The article also contains some strange comments which are demonstrably untrue, take this one:

'The RSPB claimed that their participation in ‘The Blueprint for Water’ shows their pro-angling credentials. It doesn’t. It shows that after many decades of doing nothing about water they have finally put their name to something'

I'm not sure why he would state this, as a fisheries scientist he will have been well aware of the numerous the rspb water related projects and research in the previous 10 years, which would include the following reports:

- Water wise (1995)

- 'Wise Use of Floodplains Project' which started in 1999. See here: http://ecrr.org/publication/decmak_doc1.pdf

- High and Dry: the impact on wildlife of taking too much water from our environment (1996)

- Practical Implications of Introducing Tradeable permits for Water Abstraction: Report for the RSPB by Cranfield University and Middlesex University (1997)

- LEAP forward for wildlife; promoting biodiversity through Local Environment Agency Plans (2000)

- Managing EC inshore fisheries: time for change (2000)

- Water wise? A dividend for wildlife? (Oct 2003)

How many published reports on diffuse pollution / water abstraction / riparian management were published by the coarse fishing sector during this time period ? Any guesses ?

It strikes me that the bird lobby has done more to fight the real issues facing our fisheries than the angling sector has ever done. To my mind that is a disgraceful situation and one that shames us all. The situation needs to change and this brings us back the Andy's point - look what can by done when everyone works together. Or we anglers could continue to carry on as we are, looking inward, rejecting any opportunities for partnership. How's that working out for us by the way ?
Click to expand...





Joe re your first paragraph, most anglers in this country just want to go fishing and not get involved in the politics of it, yes some base their views on some of the things you mention, but, not all do and I include myself here a lot of anglers have views based on what they have seen happen to rivers and also the damage that has been caused by predators to waters they fish. to deny that damage has been done to already damaged waterways IMO is just wrong.

Yes it was that article I was referring to, I think he was spot on in it. The projects that you list are impressive, I don't believe for one second that the RSPB were involved because they were beneficial to angling although angling may have benefited from them, their first thought is birds as ours is fish.


Sorry but I cannot agree that the bird lobby has done more for our fisheries than the angling sector, the reason being that they have got involved in them for the benefit of birds waters as I said above may have gained something from them but they hardly show that the RSPB are angling friendly not to me anyway. Any benefits to angling have been a by product.

It is clear that we hold vastly differing opinions on the RSPB and no matter how long this goes to and fro I doubt any of us will change, when I read some of the things written by their members I wonder if they also have a lunatic fringe :D

Andrew is correct that more can be achieved if all work as a team but IMO for a team to work together their must be trust and I don't trust them.

What is happening now is clearly not working for angling but IMO the alternative of jumping into bed with an organisation that see's fish as just fodder for predators is a no go.
 
I have fished part of the length of the River Ribble Long Preston Deeps for both for trout and chub, when a stretch was put on the market some years ago it was Bradford City AA that purchased the length. Everyone can buy a Bradford City AA permit for around £50-00 a season which includes many other waters. I have over the years donated several thousand pounds to Bradford City AA for habitat work. I have also spent some years improving their trout water on the River Aire. We all need to put something back into the sport via habitat work.
 
No graham, there is a need to create dialogues to effect change, otherwise it's force or rhetoric Forums have a habit of giving a distorted view - that of those that post the most is not always representive of anything other than that position. Need to look at ways forward I reckon.
 
I got back from a rather enjoyable fishing outing a few hours back, just thought I would pop in and view the fun. Sadly, we are getting nowhere, as ever in threads of this type. I think every angler on here is basically a decent chap, with views formed by their own experiences, each one as valid as the other....certainly in each individual's mind anyway. So...we will never see eye to eye. In which case, I surrender :D I might even go fishing again instead........as soon as my back recovers from this trip :p

Cheers, Dave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top