Anglers and the Environment

steve2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
3,857
Reaction score
1,159
Location
on the move
In the past we have had post against Otters, etc and now Beavers.

When it comes to releasing animals into the wild anglers are as much to blame as anyone else.

Over the years we have turned a blind eye to the over stocking of Carp, the illegal stocking of Barbel and what ever else take our fancy.
Did we care about the impact this would have on the environment that we dumped them in, of course not. They are fish and we want to catch them even if they are not in the water we can put some in from somewhere else.We now even net waters and remove anything that might stop Carp growing.
Barbel stocks in rivers may be falling but should they have been there in the first place.
So let us not blame others for problems that we have also helped to create we are all has much to blame.
 

markg

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
6,650
Reaction score
2,190
Location
South East England
I think there is a difference, stocking fish has been going on for centuries albeit for food or pleasure as in our case. We move a lot of animals around in the pet trade and farming, husbandry is not the same as re-wilding wild animals for the benefit of no one when the consequences could mean anything.
 

ian g

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2011
Messages
982
Reaction score
557
Location
North Shropshire
I'd agree with Steve , introducing barbel and carp have had detrimental effects on other species . One being crucian carp . Anglers have moved fished over the years which shouldn't really happen .
 

mikench

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
19,225
Reaction score
6,257
Location
leafy cheshire
I don't think anglers are any worse than the rest of the population in their treatment of the environment and their disdain for it. I thought this was interesting ;

IMG_0940.JPG


Fish in a lake or river are unlikely to have the kind of impact that beavers, bison or other mammals could have on land. Fish are limited in their ability to up sticks.
 

grayson

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2020
Messages
249
Reaction score
642
Location
North Yorkshire
The fishing press love to talk up anglers as guardians of the environment . Some anglers are deeply knowledgeable about the environment , care passionately for its welfare and do a lot of positive work . They are in a minority - I'm no Attenborough but I am constantly surprised by many anglers' enormous ignorance of the natural world . Whether identifying and enjoying bird song , plant life , knowing about invertebrates or even taking the trouble to learn anything about fish that doesn't assist their capture , many wallow in ignorance .

As for litter .. anglers aren't necessarily litter louts but a hell of a lot of litter louts fish . I can think of one much loved chain of gravel pits I enjoyed fishing for carp in the 90s . Access involved a walk, so the lakes which involved a longer walk were hardly fished much - and it was only ten minutes walk too. The idiot bailiff employed by the club decided to 'improve ' access by allowing every lake to become accessible by car. It was ruined in a year - cans, line and litter strewn on the banks and ad hoc toilet arrangements in smelly evidence . Guardians of the environment my a*** , but some of us still sneer at 'tree huggers' . I'm happy to hug a tree any day of the week .
 

markg

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
6,650
Reaction score
2,190
Location
South East England
That one always makes me laugh "Guardians of the environment" not exactly doing a good job of it are they; bloody useless at it. And your right they do sneer at anyone that tries to!!
 

Badgerale

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2020
Messages
51
Reaction score
69
Location
Sussex
I'm having my doubts if 'custodian of the environment' was ever true. I used to have that romantic idea for a while, since fishing rivers meant spending time with nature and I've always loved learning about the animals around me. But at the same time, I'm not sure I've ever done anything actually useful for the environment except pay my licence fee.

Most anglers don't even seem to bother with taking an interest in nature. They treat it like any other pastime, it just happens to be done with fish, and happens to take place by the waterside.

I've noticed certain things have become obsessed about - fish care especially - but also littering. Which is good, but I've also noticed it is disconnected with any wider sense of nature.

They think that the health of a water is measured only in whether they are catching big fish. So if something like the reintroduction of otters or beavers means less fish... of course that seems to them to be 'unhealthy'. Meanwhile if a river gets full of oversized (non native and unnatural) carp then of course it's a sign of a thriving waterway.
 

steve2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
3,857
Reaction score
1,159
Location
on the move
Why do some anglers think it's some one elses job to pick up rubbish. We took all the rubbish bins away from my club waters and replaced them with a ban on anyone leaving rubbish. Any rubbish in the swim becomes your rubbish and you take it away. It works well but we still find the odd bait can which are also banned on the fisheries.
What gets me is that some anglers on many waters will spend time trying to hide their rubbish rather than take it home. It almost as if it is not good enough to put in their own rubbish bins.

To say that fish put into river or lake have no impact is a bit short sighted I only have to look at the local stocking of catfish and carp. The tench have gone from some lakes where catfish were stocked and on many of the others it virtually impossible not to catch carp when fishing for something else. Many will say what is wrong with this I only want to catch carp.
I remember one small stream where it was rare to even see a carp let alone catch one then after one winter flood they arrived in numbers and the roach and chub fishing started to decline. So my view is that fish do make an impact on the environment.
 

Philip

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
4,804
Reaction score
1,282
..
.
To say that fish put into river or lake have no impact is a bit short sighted I only have to look at the local stocking of catfish and carp. The tench have gone from some lakes where catfish were stocked and on many of the others it virtually impossible not to catch carp when fishing for something else.
That surely depends on where you choose to fish.

There must be literally thousands of miles river, canal and lake bank that are not over stocked with Carp or Catfish and you could easily fish all day without seeing one.

Fish movement and stocking by anglers has probably gone on since angling first started, its nothing new. Overstocking of course happens but people tend to pick out the most extreme examples and then cite them like they are the norm.
 
Last edited:

keora

Well-known member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
684
Reaction score
27
Location
Leeds
Do anglers leave lots of litter? I fish a public fly only reservoir (Fewston near Harrogate). I'll occasionally find a fly that's been caught on branches during a back cast, and that's all. I'm a member of three different clubs, one is fly only, the other two are coarse fishing with some fly fishing. I rarely see angling litter there - any debris on the banks is normally farming related or soft drink cans. I also fish three lakes for coarse fish, all part of the same complex. Yes there is a bit of litter, mainly lengths of line, sometimes hook packets etc. This year I found a rusted fixed spool lake among the reeds.

In comparison, did anybody see the litter left by people attending the Reading festival last weekend? - "Tents and rubbish were strewn across several fields" according to today's Times. There was an aerial photo to confirm this. It was just as bad at the Leeds Festival. According to the Association of Independent Festivals, an estimated 250,000 tents are left at music festivals each year.

I don't think anglers leave lots of litter, the general public is worse.
 

markg

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
6,650
Reaction score
2,190
Location
South East England
Do anglers leave lots of litter? I fish a public fly only reservoir (Fewston near Harrogate). I'll occasionally find a fly that's been caught on branches during a back cast, and that's all. I'm a member of three different clubs, one is fly only, the other two are coarse fishing with some fly fishing. I rarely see angling litter there - any debris on the banks is normally farming related or soft drink cans. I also fish three lakes for coarse fish, all part of the same complex. Yes there is a bit of litter, mainly lengths of line, sometimes hook packets etc. This year I found a rusted fixed spool lake among the reeds.

In comparison, did anybody see the litter left by people attending the Reading festival last weekend? - "Tents and rubbish were strewn across several fields" according to today's Times. There was an aerial photo to confirm this. It was just as bad at the Leeds Festival. According to the Association of Independent Festivals, an estimated 250,000 tents are left at music festivals each year.

I don't think anglers leave lots of litter, the general public is worse.
I will agree with that, the trouble is when the odd angler does leave a lot of litter and some do it deliberately I am sure, it sticks out like a sore thumb, as it is usually in a pristine place and surrounded by beautiful countryside so it really sticks out and anyone looking will tar all anglers with it. The general public are a lot worse, your everyday litter is everywhere you look. I think they all assume that someone will pick it up so they don't care or they assume that no one will pick it up and still don't care.
This country is very bad at it, both in dropping it and clearing it up. However, there are some good signs, my local groups organize clearing up parties in parts of the town and seafront, especially after a torrid day tripper weekend, one is the awful green party! The only proactive one locally at least.
 
Last edited:

whitty

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2017
Messages
7,610
Reaction score
3,158
Location
Luton Bedfordshire.
Covid has made a big difference to me,every day(apart from fishing days)I go for a long walk,I used to make it my business to pick up other dirty bastards litter,in particular,tins and plastic bottles,now I will not touch it and I'm not going to wear rubber gloves for my exercise,likewise I don't like picking up other anglers litter as I do not want to leave myself open to covid,some anglers are filthy,like some non-anglers are,I have rung the EA on several occasions with concerns at the waterside,so I consider that I personally do a bit for the environment,but I drive a car,buy packaged food and consumer goods,therefore i'm human...although some may argue on that view.
Most barbel were stocked legally,actually with the water authorities or EA in charge of the stockings,roach seemed to suffer with barbel,carp however were totally different,I think fish like tench have suffered most with carp...
 
Last edited:

Philip

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
4,804
Reaction score
1,282
...Yet Horseshoe was also one of the best Tench waters in the UK.
 
Last edited:

steve2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
3,857
Reaction score
1,159
Location
on the move
I would disagree with the benefits if any of the way carp have been stocked. The same goes for any species of fish in waters where they are not natural even if stocked by the EA.
 

theartist

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
3,812
Reaction score
1,298
Location
On another planet
Given the time frame I'm not sure why carp or tench are mentioned in regards stockings of non native species, they have been here longer than most of the gene lines of people who live in this country.
 

markg

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
6,650
Reaction score
2,190
Location
South East England
Given the time frame I'm not sure why carp or tench are mentioned in regards stockings of non native species, they have been here longer than most of the gene lines of people who live in this country.
To me that is one of the big questions that would settle a lot of arguments if the question could be determined. And not only arguments but how do we proceed in managing the flora and fauna of this country. When does an animal cease to be a native and when does one become one.
 

markg

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
6,650
Reaction score
2,190
Location
South East England
I'm open to be corrected but I thought I read somewhere that after 150 years a species is then considered as being native.
I don't know Peter, I have never come across any official recognition, if there is not one there should be in my opinion. I would think that is quite important given the rules and laws that pervade around native and non native can differ greatly there should be some line drawn.
If it is 150 years to be considered native then it has to be 150 years to be considered non native as well I would have thought.
 

theartist

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
3,812
Reaction score
1,298
Location
On another planet
I'm not sure we would need a line with carp and tench for example, they were brought over for food over a thousand years before the potato, if whose who dislike carp want to see damage to the environment by a 'non native' go walk round a potato field then a carp lake and see which one has the most wildlife. ;)
 
Top