Fishing The Fly Scotland
Index => Main Discussion Area => Topic started by: Paul Rankine on 06/07/2008 at 22:23
-
Hi,
Just wondered if anyone has read this and what their impressions are.
Paul.
-
At launch, working on it, conclusions tomorrow.
D
-
107 responses from various clubs, associations and boards, none from ADAA, Stonehaven and District etc..which I find dissapointing. Only the Dee board represented the North East. ???
The Scottish Federation of Coarse Anglers seem to have been the most vocal with their support and also critisism..mainly in saying that it does not go far enough, especially on the protection of waters/ownership/legal methods.
The Code of practice for Commercial Stillwaters is flawed as it only covers commercial waters and not those stocked by clubs or syndicates, whether for financial gain or not.
etc etc....bit of a toothless tiger at the moment until ALL bodies involved with fishing in Scotland, be it Game or Coarse take note and contribute.
-
I have a copy and had a couple of visits to the tent at the 'fair with some queries about stuff I noticed during a 'flick through' on the occasional fag break...... need to find some time to read through it more closely before coming to any personal conclusions :wink
-
Was involved via the Scottish Carp Group who where represented by the SFCA for this paper...hence why I commented ;) We decided to contribute under one governing body rather than dilute our response...as did the other major coarse angling clubs in Scotland, as well as a few of the smaller ones.
-
Hi Rob,
"107 responses from various clubs, associations and boards, none from ADAA, Stonehaven and District etc..which I find dissapointing. Only the Dee board represented the North East."
Although no individual submissions from SDAA, ADAA and others directly to the document it may well be that those organisations already have close liaison with with the Dee and Salmon and District Salmon Fisheries Board and are happy to have the DDSFB represent their interests.
"The Scottish Federation of Coarse Anglers seem to have been the most vocal with their support and also critisism..mainly in saying that it does not go far enough, especially on the protection of waters/ownership/legal methods."
Not sure why this should be. Can you elucidate.
lyall
-
Thats a fair comment regarding the Dee board representing various associations, but the ADAA (2000+ members!) has more interest in the Don than the Dee....unless I am being really thick and cannot see them in the list of responders???????
As for the SFCA, they quickly realised that it was important for Coarse anglers to stand up and speak up.
-
You are exaggerating again. ADAA has 1000 members not 2000. ADAA is represented by 3 of our members members on SANA committees where the subject was discussed and the SANA input was in line with ADAA thoughts. We also attended various public forums where our points of view were also put forward. At one local forum less than a dozen anglers attended and 4 of them represented ADAA so before you go about being so critical get your facts correct.
Why are you so concerned about ADAA anyway? You are not even a member. ADAA are also represented on all 3 local fishery boards so also had input via the Dee Board as well as SANA as suggested by Lyall
Like ADAA, Stonehaven AA are also represented on a SANA sub comittee and on the Dee board
-
The figure of 2000 came from the ADAA website :z8
I only questioned why one of the largest clubs in the area had not been seen to be leading the way? I guess I don't see whats going on in the background. Can only appologise for that.
As for why I am concerned about the ADAA, well, as the largest club up here they have a lot of sway in the area, so naturally I am concerned at what they are upto!
-
As the current webmaster for the ADAA perhaps you can advise me where on the ADAA website I state we have 2000 members in order that I can amend it. On another issue the assumption the ADAA have a "sway" on angling issues, I do not understand why you should be "concerned" other than to assume you disagree with some policies of the Association. On this basis however, our recent survey of all our 1000 members indicated quite the opposite, perhaps its just you! Can I also suggest that instead of assuming what the ADAA are or are not up to an easier option might be to simply ask the Association directly. Thanks
-
As the current webmaster for the ADAA perhaps you can advise me where on the ADAA website I state we have 2000 members in order that I can amend it. On another issue the assumption the ADAA have a "sway" on angling issues, I do not understand why you should be "concerned" other than to assume you disagree with some policies of the Association. On this basis however, our recent survey of all our 1000 members indicated quite the opposite, perhaps its just you! Can I also suggest that instead of assuming what the ADAA are or are not up to an easier option might be to simply ask the Association directly. Thanks
Is that the old or new webmaster as I believe it's currently changing hands :z8
-
I prefer the original but "old" will do fine!!
-
:z4
-
It was on a post in the forum....I did not realise one insignificant comment would cause such a commotion :shock
The only thing that I disagree with is the Associations policy towards anglers that wish to fish for other species other than game fish, on Association waters..nothing sinister, I don't have any hidden agenders etc..
:z18
-
The ADAA's constitution fosters all types of fishing, even running sea fishing trips
"(a) To encourage the sport of angling, and in order to foster it, to provide facilities for angling at a reasonable cost for its members by renting, purchasing, exchanging or otherwise acquiring the right to fish for salmon, and fish of the salmon kind, sea trout, brown trout or other freshwater fish in any of the rivers or lochs in the district or elsewhere of interest to the Association"
As such i dont see any reason why members could not fish for any species present on our waters. Non members can get day tickets if they meet the conditions. We dont really have any significant coarse species present, other than small roach in the loch. It is my understanding that they were illegally stocked.
Gudgeon and Roach have been reported in the Don, as have pike and perch, but in tiny numbers. Indeed roach have only been reported once.
I understand that about 6 bass have been caught in the don, perhaps 2 years ago. None were reported last year, or the year before. So other than game fish we have very little to fish for.
Any one fishing ADAA waters for non game fish would surely have a far larger by-catch of game fish and this would cause a problem, both for the ADAA and the baillifs. However if you were willing to put up with the inconvenience of catching game fish as a by-catch, then I am sure the ADAA would have no concerns for any member following the rules.
-
Dave,
you are significantly wrong about the Bass..but I am not going down that route again.
As for coarse fish and coarse fishing, the methods that have been banned are those very methods that a coarse angler would want to use to catch coarse fish...so..that prevents anglers from fishing for coarse fish!
Secondly, not many coarse fish are caught because the very methods that are left to the coarse anglers precludes any coarse fish being caught. Allow deadbaiting (no natural minnow..and I understand this covers all dead fish), maggots (yes, trout love maggots and yes, to a coarse angler trout are a menace), ledgering and groundbaiting (that would allow eels to be caught and returned) etc and you would see more coarse fish caught. Not many 8oz Roach can take a lobworm meant for Salmon for example ;)
I understand what you are saying about a "by catch of game fish" and yes, this is a problem I have encountered on the Tay, Isla, Clyde, Endrick and Forth..but I can assure you EVERY game fish taken by myself and other club members/fishing buddies have been treated with the greatest of respect and returned very much alive to the water. Besides that, if the person is an Association member, whats the issue with them catching and releasing a trout or three if fishing for Roach on the loch? If they are sticking to the rules (trout to be returned if caught on coarse tactics for example) then it should not be an issue. :wink
Anyway, as been pointed out, I am no longer a member through choice :z18 and nobody has to defend the ADAA against me..I actually think they have done a good job in general and openned up a lot of fishing that Joe Bloggs would never had access to. Once more, keep up the good work.
-
(http://www.randomdeveloper.com/images/upload/IncomingBaby.jpg)
Tin helmets and flak jackets at the ready....
(http://www.ronaldreagan.com/forums/images/smilies/old_ubb_smilies/popcorn.gif)
-
you are significantly wrong about the Bass..
I believe that Dave is talking about the Bass reportedly caught in the river, the reports have solid grounding and also feature within some documentation/recent reports completed on the river so I'm firmly of the opinion that Dave is correct in what he said in his post.
We are staying well away from that previous "topic" though :wink
Getting back to the main thrust of the post I have now flicked through the mighty tome and, perhaps surprisingly, it is well laid out and explains well the long term objectives. Once I've studied it more closely I'll post something more on the thread topic I'm sure.
-
Rob
Dont know where you get your info re sea bass at the Don Estuary from. I fish there regularly and havent seen a bass for several years now. We did have 2 consecutive seasons when bass up to nearly 2lb were regularly taken when fly fishing for sea trout but that was quite a few years ago and has never been repeated since. They were caught up as far as brig of Balgownie at that time - 1 fish of 7lb was taken by an angler who didnt know what it was at the time.