River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?

[chub_on_the_block]

Theres plenty of stillwaters that are important for nature conservation where there is no CS. Not all waterbodies that are nature reserves are SSSI or necessarily owned by the National Trust or RSPB either. In these other places angling throughout the year and nature conservation happily coexist. In truth there are more lakes, ponds or other stillwaters of conservation interest than there are rivers - abstraction, pollution and awful river management by the EA or its predecessors has seen to that.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

The river CS is in place it maybe right it maybe wrong, what I am sure of is whatever happens you will never please everyone. Someone asked if “Angling Unity is it possible” this debate clearly indicates not and never will be.

That somewhat sadly is the case, and has been since long before the days on the "united" Angling Trust.

For the Angling trust to take any position other than one firmly sat on the fence will in all probability see their membership numbers fall.

This topic has all the elements already of becoming the most devisive issue since the Angling trust was formed . . . . . . . . such is the intensity of feeling

 

[maverick 7]

Lee,
The relevance of the AT paragraphs was to illustrate that they cannot really lobby for a change to the CS unless it abandons its claim of being an organisation committed to conservation. Or other pressures are brought to bare on the trust, which I suspect is the case.

You've been around long enough to know how things work, there will be no ballots by the AT and at least one of its member clubs that’s for sure. Joe angler will not have a say in anything and that’s a given. You should already be aware who the “prominent voices are” Martin Salter mentions three of them in his “River Close Season-Is it time for a rethink? A few more can be found on the AT website."

I agree with what you say more costs more, so in that light this call for change in the CS could actually backfire on those that are calling for it. Clubs and societies could find themselves paying far more for the fisheries they have on their books. That in turn could lead to losing both waters due to increased rents and members due to loss of waters or increased subs to pay the rent increases.

The river CS is in place it maybe right it maybe wrong, what I am sure of is whatever happens you will never please everyone. Someone asked if “Angling Unity is it possible” this debate clearly indicates not and never will be.

Keep your head down me duck.

Kind regards
Ray

Hi Ray..........I don't think the costs scenario would ever come into play to be honest....if the clubs and associations reach a decision not to rent their waters anymore due to the landowners raising the rents....then I feel certain the landowner will scrap the idea of raising the rents....otherwise he will finish up with nothing and I don't think those people like missing opportunities to make money.

Alternatively, if the landowner DOESN'T scrap the idea of raising rents....the clubs and associations will simply charge the members more for the extra months on the bank.....I for one would have no objection to paying a higher subscription if it meant me getting more than 3 months on the banks...like we have had this year.

We river anglers are already paying through the nose for the amount of time we get on the banks so an extra charge of a few quid for almost guaranteed fishing for 3 months would be a snip.

I think most landowners would leave the charges as they are.....maybe after a bit of negotiation ......but by and large and in my opinion....... the prices wouldn't change that much.

Maverick

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Good afternoon Maverick,
let me answer your points by numbers
1)
Hi Ray..........I don't think the costs scenario would ever come into play to be honest....if the clubs and associations reach a decision not to rent their waters anymore due to the landowners raising the rents....then I feel certain the landowner will scrap the idea of raising the rents....otherwise he will finish up with nothing and I don't think those people like missing opportunities to make money.

Answer
Not sure you are right about costs or what landowners would do if the CS was either scrapped or lengthened or shortened. That is something we would just have to wait and see. History tells me that what Black Kettle that esteemed Cheyenne chief (reincarnated as Lee Fletcher aka Trentbarbeler) has stated landowners know what their assets are worth is indeed right. We all know just what outside influences can do when fishery leases come up for renewal.

2)
Alternatively, if the landowner DOESN'T scrap the idea of raising rents....the clubs and associations will simply charge the members more for the extra months on the bank.....I for one would have no objection to paying a higher subscription if it meant me getting more than 3 months on the banks...like we have had this year.

Answer
You maybe in a position to pay more, many however may not and may not want to. This year has been an exception it is not the norm next year could be a drought. What then we call for a reinstatement of the CS due to low flows an no oxygen in the water?

3)
We river anglers are already paying through the nose for the amount of time we get on the banks so an extra charge of a few quid for almost guaranteed fishing for 3 months would be a snip.

Answer
You maybe in a position to pay more, many however may not and may not want to.We have had a few bad years with floods, that may not continue. Then again it might this last year has been an exception. I don’t think anyone has the right to want to change the CS based on suspicion that the exceptional floods of this year will continue.

The Angling Trust has written to the PM to ask that businesses that have been affected by the floods be included in any compensation schemes and rightly so. That should suffice for the tackle trade. Should that include a few river guides who are moaning they could not wet a line or guide, or match anglers that could not fish matches I don’t think so.

If some of them chose to give up reliable jobs to become full time guides or full time match anglers that’s their problem not the tax payers. It is certainly no basis to be demanding a change to the current CS, of course these are only my opinions but they are shared by many others.

I am a river angler and still managed to get my full amount of fishing in during the 2013/14 season, it just meant traveling to different waters.

4)
I think most landowners would leave the charges as they are.....maybe after a bit of negotiation ......but by and large and in my opinion....... the prices wouldn't change that much.

Answer
Again you maybe right,it will be a wait and see scenario should the “NAMES” get their way and the current CS is altered in some way. I would not speculate on a landowner who knows the value of his asset not wanting to maximise it to its full potential.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[The bad one]

My view is that the socio-economic argument is secondary to the real arguments those being, “Is the period the right period covering spawning?” Ie, is it covering the vast majority of river species? Barbel are only one species, not the be all and end all of the fish fauna.
“And does it protect the welfare of the fish and their potential prodigy during this period by having it?

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Morning all,
River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?
Martin Salter opens what is likely to be the biggest debate in angling, yes it has been debated many times before, but now it’s getting serious...

Oh really, and just who are Martin Salter, Mark Lloyd,Dave Harrell,Des Taylor and Steve Pope debating it with then? No one on FM that’s for sure, and they seem to be very quite over on the BS facebook site. Reading some of the comments over there SP seems unlikely to get support from the membership, not sure about the committee however as he usually gets his own way there regardless.

I can’t quite understand how this topic seems to have died when the protagonists claim to be so passionate about having a serious debate?
So what do FM members make of the silence from the afore mentioned and their apparent reluctance to get involved in a debate that concerns something they want to change? Is their debating over, or are we about to be mugged off by these “Names” with the help of other influences?

Sorry to bring this up again but I am very suspicious of what is going on behind closed doors, and not in the public domain where the debate should be taking place.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[thecrow]

Morning all,
River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?
Martin Salter opens what is likely to be the biggest debate in angling, yes it has been debated many times before, but now it’s getting serious...

Oh really, and just who are Martin Salter, Mark Lloyd,Dave Harrell,Des Taylor and Steve Pope debating it with then? No one on FM that’s for sure, and they seem to be very quite over on the BS facebook site. Reading some of the comments over there SP seems unlikely to get support from the membership, not sure about the committee however as he usually gets his own way there regardless.

I can’t quite understand how this topic seems to have died when the protagonists claim to be so passionate about having a serious debate?
So what do FM members make of the silence from the afore mentioned and their apparent reluctance to get involved in a debate that concerns something they want to change? Is their debating over, or are we about to be mugged off by these “Names” with the help of other influences?

Sorry to bring this up again but I am very suspicious of what is going on behind closed doors, and not in the public domain where the debate should be taking place.

Kind regards
Ray

I doubt very much if it will make any difference if names talk about it behind closed doors or in public, the only way the current closed season will change is when there is scientific evidence that the abolishing of the C/S will not have a detrimental impact on rivers and as there are no rivers where the C/S does not exist ( other than some where it is ignored ) that evidence is impossible to gather.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

I doubt very much if it will make any difference if names talk about it behind closed doors or in public, the only way the current closed season will change is when there is scientific evidence that the abolishing of the C/S will not have a detrimental impact on rivers and as there are no rivers where the C/S does not exist ( other than some where it is ignored ) that evidence is impossible to gather.

Afternoon Crow,
You may trust foxes in the hen house but not me and that’s a given. History tells us that not all things are as they seem, and things have a way of getting changed regardless of what the criteria for change might have been (scientific evidence in this case) .

Martin Salter and Mark Lloyd along with the “Names” wanted a debate, so where are they then why are they not debating? They wanted the debate so that they could take the results of the debate to the EA. So is it not obvious that they want to bring pressure to bear on the EA to bring about change. I doubt that the pressure the Angling Trust will use will have little to do with scientific evidence.

The “Names” involved have sponsors and high profiles and angling related income, so any change in the CS will benefit all of them. Des Taylor, Dave Harrell and Steve Pope and other match anglers involved have everything to gain if change can be brought about.

Personally I would not trust anyone who claims to want debate and then fails to enter into one. It is clear that an agenda is being worked to by all concerned. You might call me a cynic but I don’t trust any of them. I still believe that some are being driven by self interest and financial gain with little concern for our rivers or the creatures that dwell there in.

While formulating my thoughts no river guides, match anglers, ex MP’s or fish were harmed.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[mick b]

Martin Salter and Mark Lloyd along with the “Names” wanted a debate, so where are they then why are they not debating?


Personally I would not trust anyone who claims to want debate and then fails to enter into one. It is clear that an agenda is being worked to by all concerned. You might call me a cynic but I don’t trust any of them.
I still believe that some are being driven by self interest and financial gain with little concern for our rivers or the creatures that dwell there in.

Exactly what Ive said from the start.
Their silence is deafening...


It has all the smell of a 'political leak'...........!

Like you, I don't trust a single one of them (because of the way they have handled this) and I never thought I would find myself saying that about Steve Pope, who, until now has always had my respect.

All the more reason why I will never join the Angling Trust.


However if Fish Legal (ACA) separated itself from the Angling Trust I would join them immediately.

.

 

[thecrow]

Afternoon Crow,
You may trust foxes in the hen house but not me and that’s a given. History tells us that not all things are as they seem, and things have a way of getting changed regardless of what the criteria for change might have been (scientific evidence in this case) .

Martin Salter and Mark Lloyd along with the “Names” wanted a debate, so where are they then why are they not debating? They wanted the debate so that they could take the results of the debate to the EA. So is it not obvious that they want to bring pressure to bear on the EA to bring about change. I doubt that the pressure the Angling Trust will use will have little to do with scientific evidence.

The “Names” involved have sponsors and high profiles and angling related income, so any change in the CS will benefit all of them. Des Taylor, Dave Harrell and Steve Pope and other match anglers involved have everything to gain if change can be brought about.

Personally I would not trust anyone who claims to want debate and then fails to enter into one. It is clear that an agenda is being worked to by all concerned. You might call me a cynic but I don’t trust any of them. I still believe that some are being driven by self interest and financial gain with little concern for our rivers or the creatures that dwell there in.

While formulating my thoughts no river guides, match anglers, ex MP’s or fish were harmed.

Kind regards
Ray

I think you have misunderstood my post Ray, I agree that this should not have been brought up and then everything go quiet, it makes me suspicious as well as yourself, it makes no difference though who says what, the evidence is not there for abolishing the C/S nor can it under the current system be gathered.

---------- Post added at 08:28 ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 ----------

Exactly what Ive said from the start.
Their silence is deafening...


It has all the smell of a 'political leak'...........!

Like you, I don't trust a single one of them (because of the way they have handled this) and I never thought I would find myself saying that about Steve Pope, who, until now has always had my respect.

All the more reason why I will never join the Angling Trust.


However if Fish Legal (ACA) separated itself from the Angling Trust I would join them immediately.

.

Can in Wales Mick but not in England mores the pity although you can make a donation to F/L if you wanted to, I don't as I wouldn't know where it had gone.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I was somewhat glad to see the Angling trust's reply to my posts on the FB site, as follows:

Not at all Peter - as you can see there is great debate from both sides of the argument, yourself included. Who else should moderate this debate rather then angling's national governing body (who remain neutral as an organisation I hasten to add). Here's our statement on our www.anglingtrust.net/closeseason page - "The Angling Trust will not take any formal position in lobbying for a change in the river close season until we see what the evidence would be on fish stocks and the views of our members and the various groups of anglers. As an organisation committed to conservation, it would be irresponsible of us to do anything else. However, we do accept that this is a live issue and we want anglers on both sides of this debate to have their voices heard and for the arguments to be tested."

I sincerely hope that they keep to the stated principles over the close Season.

That said, I am still concerned over the points made which I have underlined . . . . . . and put in bold lettering . . . . .

 

[thecrow]

Who are these "various groups of anglers" why will they only listen to whoever they are and "their members" ?

 

[aebitim]

Clarification on anglings governing body pls, it reads as AT, HOPE THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

I was somewhat glad to see the Angling trust's reply to my posts on the FB site, as follows:

Not at all Peter - as you can see there is great debate from both sides of the argument, yourself included. Who else should moderate this debate rather then angling's national governing body (who remain neutral as an organisation I hasten to add). Here's our statement on our www.anglingtrust.net/closeseason page - "The Angling Trust will not take any formal position in lobbying for a change in the river close season until we see what the evidence would be on fish stocks and the views of our members and the various groups of anglers. As an organisation committed to conservation, it would be irresponsible of us to do anything else. However, we do accept that this is a live issue and we want anglers on both sides of this debate to have their voices heard and for the arguments to be tested."

I sincerely hope that they keep to the stated principles over the close Season.

That said, I am still concerned over the points made which I have underlined . . . . . . and put in bold lettering . . . . .

Hi Peter,
So if I am reading that right the Trust can do nothing as there will not be any evidence to show what effect any change to the CS would have on fish stocks. Unless of course an experiment is carried on a river catchment somewhere.

As the Trust will never “see what the evidence would be on fish stocks” that statement is null and void in my opinion.

Martin Salter has stated in his “Rivers Close Season-Is it time for a rethink?” article that the current CS does not have a huge basis in science. So I for one would not be surprised to see the scientific element disappear.

That aside however if enough pressure is brought to bear on the Trust from its members and the various groups of anglers it speaks of to lobby for change to CS will it not be duty bound to do so? It would appear that just a few “Names” seem to have already brought enough pressure to make the Trust via Martin Salter and Mark Lloyd want to facilitate a serious debate.

Quote
“The job of a national representative body is to take up important mainstream issues and to see if we can find a way through which would benefit our sport without harming the environment and the resource on which it depends. So that is precisely what Mark Lloyd and myself want to do. We first want to facilitate a serious debate within angling prior to approaching the EA and this article is our way of kicking things off.”

So come on then Martin, Mark, Steve, Des come and debate, or is your argument for change so weak you feel unable to do so?

Peter,you are quite right to be concerned. I would not be surprised in the least to see the organisation that claims to be anglings governing body cast it’s principles aside. Others involved have already done so and for 30 pieces of silver and self interest!



Kind regards
Ray

 

[thecrow]

Hi Peter,
So if I am reading that right the Trust can do nothing as there will not be any evidence to show what effect any change to the CS would have on fish stocks. Unless of course an experiment is carried on a river catchment somewhere.

As the Trust will never “see what the evidence would be on fish stocks” that statement is null and void in my opinion.

Martin Salter has stated in his “Rivers Close Season-Is it time for a rethink?” article that the current CS does not have a huge basis in science. So I for one would not be surprised to see the scientific element disappear.

That aside however if enough pressure is brought to bear on the Trust from its members and the various groups of anglers it speaks of to lobby for change to CS will it not be duty bound to do so? It would appear that just a few “Names” seem to have already brought enough pressure to make the Trust via Martin Salter and Mark Lloyd want to facilitate a serious debate.

Quote
“The job of a national representative body is to take up important mainstream issues and to see if we can find a way through which would benefit our sport without harming the environment and the resource on which it depends. So that is precisely what Mark Lloyd and myself want to do. We first want to facilitate a serious debate within angling prior to approaching the EA and this article is our way of kicking things off.”

So come on then Martin, Mark, Steve, Des come and debate, or is your argument for change so weak you feel unable to do so?

Peter,you are quite right to be concerned. I would not be surprised in the least to see the organisation that claims to be anglings governing body cast it’s principles aside. Others involved have already done so and for 30 pieces of silver and self interest!



Kind regards
Ray

Hence my post #207 Ray, nothing will change without evidence and as that evidence cannot be collected nothing will change.

Their may be "discusions" going on behind closed doors I don't know but would the angling trust risk loosing members from its already small number by trying to get rid of the C/S ?

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Hence my post #207 Ray, nothing will change without evidence and as that evidence cannot be collected nothing will change.

Their may be "discusions" going on behind closed doors I don't know but would the angling trust risk loosing members from its already small number by trying to get rid of the C/S ?

Good evening Crow,
While I appreciate what you say the clue is there to see “The job of a national representative body is to take up important mainstream issues and to see if we can find a way through which would benefit our sport without harming the environment and the resource on which it depends”.

So you can bet your bottom dollar that they will/are looking for other ways in which to approach the EA and the Government. It was the Government that intervened in 2000 and introduce the scientific element.

Knowing one of the “Names” I know he would not have nailed his flag to this mast unless he thought there was some mileage in doing so. These things have a way of gaining life and growing, and us ordinary anglers will be able to do little to stop it. I do not fool myself into a false sense of security that the lack of scientific evidence and it not being able to be collected will safe guard the river CS.

This time around the debate about the river CS is different, I for one am concerned only time will tell if my concerns are well founded.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[loggerhead]

It was the Government that intervened in 2000 and introduce the scientific element.

What "scientific element" was that then? I must have missed it. If it was "scientific" evidence then surely that would stand today since fish haven't evolved since 2000, I'm sure.

You seem to be transfixed with what a few people have started and complain that they aren't debating with you. Perhaps they're waiting for you and others to come up with your reasons for retaining it and any evidence you can support it with and then they'll try to summarise it all to draw up some conclusions. If they interfered to much by constantly posting their thoughts you'd then accuse them of trying to dominate the debate.

So my advice would be, if you want to have your say on this subject, document it in one big statement and let the AT have it to post on their site. There's plenty up there already, or you could just post a reply on Martin's own blog page, lots have done that. Far better than moaning and cat-calling "the names" on here, I would have thought.

As for me, I cannot see any sense in keeping it since it long ago served its purpose and should now be scrapped as a law and left to local decisions. That's not stopping you or anyone else from imposing a close season on your own stretch of water or from imposing it on yourself for those three months. Our methods of catch and release have changed since Victorian times and river fish are no longer at any risk of being killed purposely, except by some imigrants who probably don't abide by the close season anyway and the best way of keeping them at bay is to encourage all other anglers onto the banks.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

What "scientific element" was that then? I must have missed it. If it was "scientific" evidence then surely that would stand today since fish haven't evolved since 2000, I'm sure.

You seem to be transfixed with what a few people have started and complain that they aren't debating with you. Perhaps they're waiting for you and others to come up with your reasons for retaining it and any evidence you can support it with and then they'll try to summarise it all to draw up some conclusions. If they interfered to much by constantly posting their thoughts you'd then accuse them of trying to dominate the debate.

So my advice would be, if you want to have your say on this subject, document it in one big statement and let the AT have it to post on their site. There's plenty up there already, or you could just post a reply on Martin's own blog page, lots have done that. Far better than moaning and cat-calling "the names" on here, I would have thought.

As for me, I cannot see any sense in keeping it since it long ago served its purpose and should now be scrapped as a law and left to local decisions. That's not stopping you or anyone else from imposing a close season on your own stretch of water or from imposing it on yourself for those three months. Our methods of catch and release have changed since Victorian times and river fish are no longer at any risk of being killed purposely, except by some imigrants who probably don't abide by the close season anyway and the best way of keeping them at bay is to encourage all other anglers onto the banks.

Loggerhead,
You obviously did not read Martin Salter’s then, “
Quote,
‘Back in 2000 the independent Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review proposed that the close season on rivers should be lifted other than “where its retention is necessary to avert serious risk of damage to fish stocks” but intervention by Parliament confirmed that it couldn’t be lifted until supporting scientific evidence was available.”

I said that the government introduce the scientific element, I did not say they introduced scientific evidence(interpretation).

Debate was invited, I am not moaning I am asking why those who invited the debate are not doing exactly that. I don’t have to come up with reasons to keep the CS it is there by law.
They want the change so “THEY” must come up with the reasons and scientific evidence to get the change they want. Or find another way to get what they want.

Why would I say that if they contributed to a debate they invited that they were trying to dominate it (makes no sense)? It would be nice to know their thoughts!!

Thanks for the advice, I have already written to the Trust and e-mailed them with my views. As debate was invited on FM I will continue to debate on here and with respect if it’s all the same to you.

As for views, you have yours and that’s fine by me, I will flip your comments back to you. As you want the CS scrapped you come up with any evidence you can get to have it changed or scrapped.

If you seriously believe that fish are not being killed deliberately, I would respectfully suggest you are out of touch with the real world. The best way to stop it is not to have all other anglers on the bank.

The real way to stop anyone from killing and taking fish from our rivers and still waters (in my opinion) is to have proper funded EA.

Fish killing has gone on for almost 20 years, I have witnessed long lines applied from the bridge over the Copper Mill Stream and lines pegged out on the Upper Beyones. I can tell you from first hand knowledge that most anglers would not and will not get involved if they see this going on. So “All” anglers on the bank is not the answer and would stop no one.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[loggerhead]

I said that the government introduce the scientific element, I did not say they introduced scientific evidence(interpretation).

OK, fair play. There was no scientific evidence offered at the time, which we seem to agree on - don't we?

As you want the CS scrapped you come up with any evidence you can get to have it changed or scrapped.

Things don't work like that though, do they? Take the person arrested by the police on a mugging/burglary/bankrobbery (you make it up) charge, but have no evidence to prove he did it. Have they the right to detain him? NO! No evidence, no charge, case dropped.

That's the case here. There is no evidence and never will be to support retaining the close season and therefore the law should be dropped. However, if anyone, beit a fishery owner, individual or clubs who owns or leases fishing rights wishes to operate his own close season I would have no objection to that. It's their choice.

I am in touch with the real world and I do see some visitors intent on taking fish, but these are so few it does not warrant restricting thousands of others from practising their sport. It only bothers me the fact that they are using a facility that I might have paid for and they are to all intents and purposes stealing that facility. So I would rather have anglers on the river to deter them.

Your comment on paying the EA more to do the job of bailiffing does not work, the EA cannot recruit and train the people now. Cost is not an issue, and I don't think the VBS by the AT is a goer either. Why ask someone else to do your work, if you want to stop people from poaching or killing your fish, you get out there and do the job, don't keep expecting others to do it for you (by 'you' I imply everyone).

It's a simple equation - get rid of the law and you can take control. Simple and cheaper for the EA.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Wood 1 View Post
I said that the government introduce the scientific element, I did not say they introduced scientific evidence(interpretation).

OK, fair play. There was no scientific evidence offered at the time, which we seem to agree on - don't we?

Yes we are agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Wood 1 View Post
As you want the CS scrapped you come up with any evidence you can get to have it changed or scrapped.

Things don't work like that though, do they? Take the person arrested by the police on a mugging/burglary/bankrobbery (you make it up) charge, but have no evidence to prove he did it. Have they the right to detain him? NO! No evidence, no charge, case dropped.

That's the case here. There is no evidence and never will be to support retaining the close season and therefore the law should be dropped. However, if anyone, beit a fishery owner, individual or clubs who owns or leases fishing rights wishes to operate his own close season I would have no objection to that. It's their choice.

If only it were that simple, but you can’t compare your scenarios to the CS. We are agreed that there was no evidence to start with, that I’m afraid is irrelevant the requirement to change or scrap the CS is dependant on such evidence being gathered. Like it or not the onus is on those who want the change to produce it or get the EA and Government to change its position which would allow the law to be changed.

I am in touch with the real world and I do see some visitors intent on taking fish, but these are so few it does not warrant restricting thousands of others from practising their sport. It only bothers me the fact that they are using a facility that I might have paid for and they are to all intents and purposes stealing that facility. So I would rather have anglers on the river to deter them.

Visitors are not keeping thousands from practicing their sport the law of the land is doing that. You say that the fish thefts are far and few between, that might be the case in some areas certainly not here.


Your comment on paying the EA more to do the job of bailiffing does not work, the EA cannot recruit and train the people now. Cost is not an issue, and I don't think the VBS by the AT is a goer either. Why ask someone else to do your work, if you want to stop people from poaching or killing your fish, you get out there and do the job, don't keep expecting others to do it for you (by 'you' I imply everyone).

The EA are the authority to bailiff and prosecute poachers/fish stealers, not Joe Angler, I do agree with you that the VBS is not a goer.
I do ot ask others to do my work it is not a problem for me to try and stop people from poaching, I am a bailiff for the clubs I belong to. I also do not have a problem approaching fish stealers, I have every confidence in my own ability to take care of myself. Many others may not have that confidence, and I would not suggest to anyone to place themselves at risk.

It's a simple equation - get rid of the law and you can take control. Simple and cheaper for the EA

We will have to disagree on your equation on getting rid of the law and taking control.

Sorry I don’t know who to do multiple quotes so hope you can read this OK.

Kind regards
Ray