Thanks for the info. There's only so much research I can do in a day and the Northumbria RBMP is heavy reading.

I wonder why we don't hear the coarse anglers freaking out about the impact upon the genetics of the wild stocks, poodles and wolves and suchlike?

...or maybe they do and as a (mostly) game fisher I'm not reading the right comments and articles?

There probably are genetic issues associated with coarse fish rearing which should be looked into although I believe that most of the broodstock used for the EAs coarse fish rearing are derived from wild fish rather than introgressed domesticated stock used in the trout farming industry.

The whole reason for the trout stocking policy is to protect the long term viability and fitness of wild trout and sea trout stocks. If we as anglers can't support this then it just flags up why we sometimes come across as such a disorganized bunch of self interested individuals rather than a united group of effective environmental campaigners.

I think this thread is supposed to be exploring why we can't seem to find our voice. We (anglers) used to hold the moral high ground when it came to speaking out against pollution and abstraction. This gets more difficult when we are not prepared to compromise on issues such as over stocking, over exploitation and turning a blind eye to habitat degradation in the name of catching more and bigger fish! Anglers have a fantastic track record on standing up for better quality rivers and lakes - we must not give those that might want to knock us the opportunity to do so.

These national meeting are all well and good. But at a local level, due to jobsworth councils and the like they do not work. Let me give 2 examples. The first is still on going. Its not game fishing but we are all anglers. A very popular length of the northwest coast that had easy access for disabled anglers by car and had been used for 20yrs that I know of. Suddenly without any consultation banned car access so depriving many disabled anglers the right to fish. When they were questioned there answer was. Well they can find somewhere else to fish.

The second case concerns a river. We asked the local council if they minded if we cleaned a length of river they owned. Their reply was do what you like with it no fish in there. So to cut a long story short we sorted it out encouraged fish back in it. Even Brown trout were being caught. We kept the length free to fish and it was very popular with the local kids. When the council find out what a good job we had done. They put it up for tender and it ended up a private water.

I have not mentioned the waters on purpose in case of any legal implications.

Until things like this a resolved at a local level what hope is there nationally??

There are two big issues with Game fishing that have not been mentioned yet which I believe are a huge put off for wannabe anglers making the switch or indeed branching out from coarse fishing

1) Catch and Kill!! I know that there are places that you can catch and release but they are in the minority and the big and popular fisheries where coarse/new anglers are more likely to begin are mostly based on a kill what you catch ticket.......not every one wants to do it and it should become an option and perhaps will result in some cheaper day tickets and more coarse/new/game converts

2) The Inconsistency of the start of the trout season up north this is the beginning of march......inline with the end of the coarse season thus promoting a potential crossover yet down here in the south it doesnt begin (for some extremely odd reason I dont know why.....perhaps our friend from the EA can awner that one) till the beginning of april!!!!!!!!!!!! are trout really late bloomers down south and why should I loose a month of my fishing year just cause I reside in the south!!!!!!

As many have already mentioned I agree cost is a major issue, privatisation of the limited number of trout waters in this country (particually down south) is a big issue for many.....I am pleased to see that the snowdonia national park may soon join the already existing passport schemes developing in this country.......can anyone see that happening on the southern chalkstreams!!!!!

£500 quid a year and 5 year waiting list for one southern club just shows the kind of outlandish costs that face southern game anglers wanting to try out river trouting!!!

As one or two have mentioned on here the management/controll of waters is a huge problem, councils selling off free trout fishing, way beyond the budget of the junior anglers who once learned on it i highly expect!!!! Name and Shame the stories please previous poster!!!!!!!

Rant Over

Fly Tripper

Actually there is a big difference between spawning times on the northern and western spate streams compared to the lowland/chalk rivers which is reflected in the regional variations in close seasons. Some of the wild trout on chalk streams don't start spawning until January or sometimes even February. I believe that one of the problems the EA also face is that close seasons have to extend for a statutory minimum period which is why you can still cast a line for trout in Southern Region in October when most of the trout fishing has closed on the spate streams. You either start early or finish early although I certainly wouldn't want to see anglers trampling around with their waders on the lowland streams in March.

I fully agree about the difficulties with regards to finding some affordable river fishing in the South. There is some but you have to look hard to find it and if everybody knew where it was it wouldn't be worth fishing - it's a real dilemma!

Because, I suspect, coarse fish are mostly only stocked after a fish kill, stocking is not usually a routine management tool and virtually all coarse river fishing is what would be called "wild" if it were for trout.

The EA has recently stocked barbel into the Thames near me, but it is a seeding operation, not a regular restocking - the expectation is that they will re-establish a breeding population. I think that is the difference in attitude, perhaps in large part down to many managed river trout fisheries having historically been catch and kill, with taken fish replaced with stockies?

The exception to this is those commercial coarse fisheries which stock mostly carp at way above the natural carrying capacity of the water. Maintaining artificially high stocking densities requires stocking, but these are enclosed waters.

Too many interested bodies, associations, trusts, reports, etc etc etc.
Needs to be one, and only one, national angling representative to government.
THEN, AND ONLY THEN WILL all ANGLERS BE HEARD, and perhaps listened to!!.
regards
bert

It is all very interesting. I am optomistic that major changes will occur but, as always, the pace that they do is frustratingly slow. I do not think it is something we should expect from our Governments - Scottish/ English or otherwise. It is something we - as anglers - will effect ourselves. That comes from getting off our arses and doing something about it.

There are many obstacles to overcome. First we need to develop a group that is focused on making a change. Then we need to choose a location and deliver some positive results. I have tried to do this on my local water - Loch Lomond - and, let me tell you, it is not as easy as it sounds. To me the idea of increasing fish stocks / fish size is not the hard bit. What is difficult is organising people so reliable data can be determined. While the element of finance exists what is harder is getting commitment than it is money.

The day I see ten others on the banks of a river without rods is the day I know something positive will happen. In my opinion this will not be solved by a committee but by fishermen. Once we know that we can manipulate fish stocks the money will follow but as the observers in the equation I do not see this happening until we do something about it ourselves. Yes - it is true - lots has happened already. Loads. Even the stuff that did not work was useful. But it is not nearly co-ordinated enough to produce the hard data needed to take it on to the next level.

Until the biology Higher / A level includes field work under the title 'conservation studies' we will not have entered mainstream thinking. Fisherman are not seen as Conservationists, quite the opposite. We have tangled not only our own thinking, but that of the public with 100% catch and release. Do we not realise that the general public's thinking is that if we care so much why don't we continue to pay what we do and not fish at all? Fisherman are the ultimate conservationsts - farming a natural resource - leading the way in sustainable harvesting but we still have a long way to go.

AcEgEnE

A lot of obstacles to over come here -but best of luck.

__________________
[COLOR="Blue"]"A fish seen is a fish nearly caught"[/COLOR]

I will be amazed if all the bodies manage to sort it all out and there will certainly be some who wont be happy whatever.