When the authorities mess with water courses they always tell us there will be no damage to wildlife, no damage to the infrastructure of the rivers or streams or to the fish, yet every time it results in damage to all these things, severe damage in some cases and irreversible damage in others. Feeder steams dry up as a result of abstraction and all life that once existed in that water course dies yet the authorities insisted it wouldn't have any affect whatsoever.
I for one do not believe a single word they utter, they are hypocrites the lot of them. That wonderful book "the Stream" illustrates this scenario perfectly.
Graham, I would like to think, and hope, that all the SS and Specialist/Specimen groupsand anglers willbecome members of the AT in their own right, I wasn't thinking for a moment that each and every single group should haveit's own little place. However, as the SAA REPRESENTED all of those bodies and individual specialst anglers under the old system, I believe that as a movement 'Specialist Angling' should have been listed along side of the rest at the start.
The SAA will not be mentioned because it no longer exists.
You will remember that this site celebrated the life of Eric Hodgson, the founder of the theNational specimen movement, NASH,later to become NASA and thenthe SAA, only a few months ago, It would besad that the year that saw the birth of the AT also saw the death ofspecialist angling as a National movement.
I'm not saying anything here I haven't already said to Mark L and Mike.
'Fish 'O' Mania' has been added to the site since I brought up the SA issue!
Woody, I listened to a very interesting programme on BBC Radio 4 a few weeks ago aboutthe hydro plan on the Ribble, (Settle) at the end the EA fisheries guy made it very clear it wouldn't happen if the scheme interfered with the river as a salmon fishery.
There's a hydro-electric plant planned for the Thames at Windsor. Apparently it will supply lecky for Windsor Castle as HRH is finding it difficult to keep up with the bills.
I'm in favour of them so long as they are well planned and fish-friendly and I don't see why, in this day and age, they can't be planned so. Better than water abstraction facilities that kill millions of fry each year as they get sucked up. Not much happening about them though!
Having read what Woody has put up from Mark Lloyd, I think Mark was right to place a very big marker down as to where AT stands on thesubject of hydro plants in rivers.
For to long so-called Green companies and projects have been getting away with it, because their scheme doesn't produce Co2 and or the emissions are lower than conventional power generation.
However, when a full environmental/ecological life-cycle analysis is done, and that can take up to 20 years to show its failings, they have been found to be as damaging in other ways as Co2emissions were/are.
What weshould besaying is Angling through AT wants to beclassed as Statutory Consultee to all proposed projects, big or small, that impacts on the water environment.
I've wrote before there are huge changes acoming in the Planning process through Local Development Framework (scheduled for introduction in 2012) By getting the classification as Statutory Consultee we have to be involved by lawat theearliest stage of the process and not as now, finding out in some cases,days before such schemes go to the Planning Committee of the proposed project area.
With the best will in the world, no one can put up a credible case against a project with only a few days to prepare that case.
One last fear I have for projects such as these is, this Govt is going to bring in new powers where projects that are classed as in the National Interest won't have to go through the publicscrutiny of the planning process. It will when the powers are brought in, rest solely with officials of Whitehall and the Sec of State to make that decision.
Yes folks while the Nation was preoccupied with who was bonking who, this Govt was planning to take away your rights your freedoms and undermine the democratic process still further.
I can envisageeven small-scale schemes of 50MW being usurped into the National Interest clause.
Thats because the government there have more common sense than our government Matt, we build them because we have to be seen to be doing something in the eyes of the world, the fact that it is a complete waste of time and money is neither here or there.
Cheers Fred, it is the last throw of the dice for anglers anyway, what have we to lose ? I would argue ,absolutely nothing at all, at least we tried to help make Angling Trust work, if you can call just£20 trying that is.
Matt "environmental impact" of land based turbines is minimal, no more sothan the pylons that relentlessly march across Pennines and other countryside.What is contested is the loss of landscape value, and in areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONBs)that price is to higher price to pay.
However, offshore they are less of a visual problem. In fact from an angling point of view, they are of benefit. As they act as nurseries and refugesfor fish, where the coastal trawlers can't get at them because of the structures and linking cables. Because of this they may well turn out to be the savior of some of the threatened sea fish species.
This fact may well have benefits for coarse anglers as well. The more coastal fish there are, the more likely the black deathwill stay where they reallyshould be. Coastal Waters!
There is technology available now to enable 'electrical power' to be transmitted by radio waves. Only small scale at the moment i.e. charger to a mobile/laptop, but it could be developed further. Not sure what affect it will have on brain cells though /forum/smilies/sick_smiley.gif
I just wonder whether there has been any attempts to get the individual river trusts and the Ass of River Trusts on board, especially as the AT Chair, Dr Stephen Marsh-Smith, is also the Executive Officer and Chair of the Wye and Usk Foundation...busy man
[quote name='Elton' date='Jan 15 2009, 12:27 PM' post='1900995']
I've yet to be won over by the spin, am tired of people trying to bully anglers into joining, and won't be signing up until I see good reason to.
For the owner of a popular angling site (a site he presumably receives an income from) to come out with a statement like this beggar's belief.
I did reply to Elton's comments but as all replies have to be 'approved' it may not see the light of day. Bl**dy disgusting, IMHO
<blockquote class=quoteheader>John H . Wearyone. C.S.G. & the A.T. wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>For the owner of a popular angling site (a site he presumably receives an income from) to come out with a statement like this beggar's belief.</blockquote>
Why so, John?
He posted it as any other member could have, therefore it's his own opinion even though he is the owner of the site. If the site carried an article advising others not to join then I would agree with you, but what he has done is no different to what Graham Marsden has done in posting his private feelings and opinion into a thread.